Opinion
CASE NO. 4:04-CV-161 (CDL).
February 14, 2008
ORDER
The Court of Appeals has remanded the interlocutory appeals of Defendants Stinson and Price in light of this Court's December 27, 2007 Order. In the December 27, 2007 Order, this Court certified to the Court of Appeals that if it remanded these appeals, this Court would grant Stinson's and Price's Rule 60(b) motions and vacate that portion of its August 31, 2006 Order that denied Stinson's and Price's motions for summary judgment. See Walker v. Johnson, 2007 WL 4579641 (M.D. Ga. 2007). The Court also indicated that it would then find as a matter of law that Stinson and Price are entitled to qualified immunity and grant their motions for summary judgment. Id.
For the Court's August 31, 2006 Order, see Beaulah v. Muscogee County Sheriff's Deputies, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1376 (M.D. Ga. 2006).
For the reasons stated in the Court's December 27, 2007 Order, the Court grants Stinson's and Price's Rule 60(b) motions (Docs. 127, 128, 132, 133) and vacates only that portion of its August 31, 2006 Order that denied Stinson's and Price's motions for summary judgment. Id. Furthermore, for the same reasons stated in its December 27, 2007 Order, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Stinson and Price. With today's ruling, summary judgment has now been granted in favor of all Defendants on all of Plaintiff's claims, except for Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Glisson in his individual capacity. Those claims against Defendant Glisson in his individual capacity remain pending for trial.
The Court finds it unnecessary to receive additional briefing on Stinson's and Price's previously filed summary judgment motions. The parties have had ample opportunity to address the issues presented by the motions, and further briefing would lead to unwarranted delay.
As to the Court's orders granting summary judgment in this case, including the August 31, 2006 order and today's Order, the Court directs, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that final judgment be entered in favor of all Defendants (except Glisson) on all of Plaintiff's claims (except those against Glisson), and the Court expressly finds that there is no just reason for delay in entering final judgment on those claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.