Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harrelson v. Dupnik

United States District Court, D. Arizona

August 27, 2013

Jacquelyn Harrelson, Plaintiff,
v.
Clarence W. Dupnik, Sheriff of Pima County, et al., Defendants

Page 954

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 955

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 956

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 957

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 958

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 959

For Jacquelyn Harrelson, Individually and Statutory Beneficiaries on behalf of M.J.H., estate of M.J.H., Plaintiff: Anne E Findling, Joel B Robbins, Robbins & Curtin PLLC, Phoenix, AZ.

For Clarence W Dupnik, Sheriff of Pima County, Pima, County of, a Political Subdivision of the State of Arizona, Defendants: Denise Hilda Laura Troy, Dickinson Wright/Mariscal Weeks, Phoenix, AZ; Nancy Jane Davis, Pima County Attorneys Office, Tucson, AZ; Timothy J Thomason, Mariscal Weeks McIntyre & Friedlander PA, Phoenix, AZ.

For ConMed Healthcare Management Incorporated, a Foreign Corporation, ConMed Incorporated, an Arizona Corporation doing business as ConMed Healthcare Management Incorporated, Defendants: Denise Hilda Laura Troy, Dickinson Wright/Mariscal Weeks, Phoenix, AZ; Timothy J Thomason, Mariscal Weeks McIntyre & Friedlander PA, Phoenix, AZ.

For Steven R Galper, MD, Roger Bishop, MD, Karen Yashar, RN, K Richey, RN, Defendants: Denise Hilda Laura Troy, LEAD ATTORNEY, Dickinson Wright/Mariscal Weeks, Phoenix, AZ.

OPINION

Page 960

ORDER

Frank R. Zapata, Senior United States District Judge.

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued bye Magistrate Judge Estrada. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Estrada recommends denying in part and granting in part Defendants' motions for summary judgment. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the motions for summary judgment, the objections are denied. [1]

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) Magistrate Judge Estrada's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 131) is accepted and adopted.

(2) The motions for summary judgment (Docs. 100, 105) are denied in part and granted in part as reflected in the Report and Recommendation.

(3) The parties shall file a proposed Joint Pretrial Order on or before 9/27/13, which shall include, but not be limited to, that prescribed in the form of Joint Pretrial Order attached. As pretrial motions remain to be resolved as the Court expects that the parties will file motions in limine, this case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to issue a Report and Recommendation as to any motions in limine (or other pretrial motions). Motions in limine shall be filed no later than the date of filing the proposed Joint Pretrial Order. Responses to motions in limine are due 14 days after the filing of the motion. Unless otherwise ordered by the Magistrate Judge, no replies are permitted and motions in limine and responses thereto shall not exceed five pages. After the Court receives the Report and Recommendation, any objections, and issues an Order as to the Report and Recommendation, the Court will withdraw the reference to the Magistrate Judge and issue a final pretrial Order setting dates for trial, the pretrial conference, and the filing of proposed jury instructions, voir dire and verdict forms. [2]


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.