Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Brown v. Cobb

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

July 12, 2018

CHRISTOPHER DANIEL BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
ALEXANDRIA COBB and LORI JOHSNON, Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 35) AND DISMISSING CASE

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Christopher Daniel Brown, a former Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing himself, filed a case under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights at the hospital after his arrest on May 26, 2014. The court screened the plaintiff's amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A, and allowed him to proceed on Fourth Amendment claims that the defendants drew his blood without his consent. Dkt. No. 10 at 8-9.

         On October 7, 2016, defendants Alexandria Cobb and Lori Johnson filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 35. Defendant Keith Radar filed a separate motion for summary judgment that same day. Dkt. No. 40. The court granted Radar's motion, after concluding that he had not been acting under the color of state law when he ordered the plaintiff's blood to be drawn. Dkt. No. 57.

         Cobb and Johnson also argued that they were not state actors, but the court concluded that they had failed to provide the court with sufficient evidence to support that assertion. Dkt. No. 57 at 15. For that reason, the court could not rule on their motion for summary judgment. It gave Cobb and Johnson additional time to submit evidence to support their argument. They did so on May 4, 2018. Now that the court has reviewed the additional evidence they provided, the court will grant Cobb's and Johnson's motion for summary judgment, and will dismiss the case.

         I. RELEVANT FACTS

         The court described the relevant facts in its March 30, 2018 decision. Dkt. No. 57 at 4-9. It incorporates those facts into this decision.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Summary Judgment Standard

         “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Ames v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.3d 665, 668 (7th Cir. 2011). “Material facts” are those under the applicable substantive law that “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute over a “material fact” is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

         A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed, or is genuinely disputed, must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). “An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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