Free Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00230-SRU

Document 113

Filed 04/01/2005

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CLAUDIOUS W. CHANNER v. PAUL MURRAY RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERAL JANET RENO, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CITY OF HARTFORD ATF AGENT JAMES MARKOWSKI SERGEANT CAGARNELLO DETECTIVE MICHAEL PERODEAU DETECTIVE GREGORY MERRITT DETECTIVE WOLF DETECTIVE ELLIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATF J U D G M E N T This cause came on for consideration of the amended complaint, defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment before the Honorable Stefan R. Underhill, United States District Judge. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, United States Attorney General Janet Reno, the City of Hartford, ATF Agent James Markowski, Sergeant Cagarnello, Detective Michael Perodeau, Detective Gregory Merritt, Detective Wolf and Detective Ellis as defendants. The PRISONER CIVIL NO. 3:00CV230 (SRU) (WIG)

United States of America, the ATF and Paul Murray were not named as defendants in the amended complaint. Thus, the court considered any

claims against those defendants to have been abandoned or withdrawn. The court has considered the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and the amended complaint as well as all papers

Case 3:00-cv-00230-SRU

Document 113

Filed 04/01/2005

Page 2 of 2

submitted in connection with those motions and amended complaint. On September 18, 2002, the court granted a motion to dismiss as to defendants City of Hartford, Markowski, Perodeau, Merritt, Wolf, Ellis and Cagarnello on the ground that the plaintiff's claims of excessive force and racial discrimination were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court also declined to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claim of fraudulent concealment as to defendants Markowski, Perodeau, Merritt, Wolf, Ellis and Cagarnello. On February 21, 2003, the court granted defendant Reno's motion to dismiss as to all claims against her, dismissed plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2513 and 1495 as to all defendants on jurisdictional grounds, dismissed all claims against defendant Blumenthal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims against defendants Reno and Blumenthal. On March 31, 2005, the court granted the City of Hartford's motion for summary judgment and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims against the City of Hartford. Therefore it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and the case is closed. Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 1st day of April, 2005. KEVIN F. ROWE, Clerk By /s/ Cynthia Earle Cynthia Earle Deputy Clerk

Entry on Docket ________________