Luster et al v. City of Dallas et al, No. 3:2016cv00396 - Document 144 (N.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations re: 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' claims premised on the unlawful detention of Decedent and DaMon, the unlawful seizure of Decedent, the unlawful arrest of DaMon, the use of e xcessive force against DaMon, the denial of due process of law as to Decedent, the denial of equal protection as to Decedent and DaMon, as well as Plaintiffs state law claims against the City and Tolerton are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 8/29/2018) (epm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Luster et al v. City of Dallas et al Doc. 144 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CASSANDRA LUSTER, Individually and A/N/F/ of D. L., a Minor Child, et al., Plaintiffs, § § § § § § § § v. CITY OF DALLAS, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-0396-B ORDER ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Defendants City of Dallas and Aaron Tolerton’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Doc. 72, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims premised on the unlawful detention of Decedent and DaMon, the unlawful seizure of Decedent, the unlawful arrest of DaMon, the use of excessive force against DaMon, the denial of due process of law as to Decedent, the denial of equal protection as to Decedent and DaMon, as well as Plaintiffs’ state law claims against the City and Tolerton are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2018. _________________________________ JANE J. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
