Legal Opinion
Santine v. Roberts
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided June 16, 1987No. Civ. A. 85-337PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LONGOBARDI, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. 1 Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment based on the Defendants’ failure to timely file a brief. Docket Item (“D.I.”) 31. The United States Magistrate has recommended that Plaintiff’s motion be denied based on the fact that Defendants had been granted an extension of time in which to file their brief. D.I. 34. The Court will adopt the Magistrate’s recommendation and Plaintiff’s motion will, therefore, be denied.
The Magistrate has recommended that…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Beck v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. WatsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- United States v. HensleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Schwab v. WoodDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1991
- Johnson v. CampbellDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2002
- Sanchez v. CrumpDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2002
- Santine (Richard) v. Roberts (Donald), Koumpias (George), State of DelawareCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987