DAVID McCLURE, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES PORTS, ET AL., Defendants.
United States District Court, D. Maryland.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
December 15, 2017.
December 15, 2017.
Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Source: PACER
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
David McClure, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel B. Smith , AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION.
David McClure, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Persoon , Despres Schwartz and Geoghegan Ltd., pro hac vice & Thomas Geoghegan , Despres Schwartz and Geoghegan Ltd., pro hac vice.
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Persoon , Despres Schwartz and Geoghegan Ltd., pro hac vice, Thomas Geoghegan , Despres Schwartz and Geoghegan Ltd., pro hac vice & Daniel B. Smith , AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION.
James Ports, Defendant, represented by Christopher L. Fontaine , Office of the Attorney General Department of Transportation & Eric Scott Hartwig , Maryland Office of the Attorney General Department of Transportation.
Earl Lewis, Defendant, represented by Christopher L. Fontaine , Office of the Attorney General Department of Transportation & Eric Scott Hartwig , Maryland Office of the Attorney General Department of Transportation.
Paul Comfort, Defendant, represented by Christopher L. Fontaine , Office of the Attorney General Department of Transportation & Eric Scott Hartwig , Maryland Office of the Attorney General Department of Transportation.
Louis Jones, Defendant, represented by Christopher L. Fontaine , Office of the Attorney General Department of Transportation & Eric Scott Hartwig , Maryland Office of the Attorney General Department of Transportation.
Kevin Quinn, Defendant, represented by Eric Scott Hartwig , Maryland Office of the Attorney General Department of Transportation.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge.
The Court has before it Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Or in the Alternative, For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 29], and Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery in Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 33]. The Court has held a hearing and has had the benefit of arguments...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
