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.

Foster v. Cerro Gordo County

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division

September 26, 2017

MARGARET RAE FOSTER, Plaintiff,
v.
CERRO GORDO COUNTY, an Iowa Municipal Corporation, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          C.J. Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of Iowa

         Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Notice of Appeal. (Doc. 77). Plaintiff requests “that the Court extend the time to file notice of appeal in this matter to allow Plaintiff to file an amended notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A), or to allow amendment of the notice of appeal by operation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(6).” (Doc. 77, at 1). This same motion was previously before this Court; however, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for lack of jurisdiction.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         The Court adopts its previous factual and procedural findings as set forth below:

         Plaintiff sued two groups of defendants. Plaintiff alleged a group of Mason City Police Officers (City Defendants) used excessive force when arresting her. Plaintiff also alleged a group of Cerro Gordo County Sheriff's Office employees (County Defendants) failed to provide her with timely medical care for injuries the City Defendants allegedly inflicted. Plaintiff brought both claims pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1983, and also alleged various state law causes of action.

         The procedural history in this matter is as follows.

         On October 2, 2015, the County Defendants moved for summary judgment. Doc. 37.

         On January 28, 2016, the court granted the County Defendants' summary judgment motion. Doc. 46.

         On February 1, 2016, the City Defendants moved for summary judgment. Doc. 47.

         On February 24, 2016, plaintiff prematurely filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. Doc. 51. The court treated this motion as a motion to reconsider its order granting the County Defendants' summary judgment motion, and denied it. Doc. 60.

         On April 27, 2016, plaintiff prematurely filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 63), seeking to appeal the court's order granting the County Defendants' motion for summary judgment as well as on the court's order denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion.

         On May 10, 2016, the court granted City Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Doc. 68.

         On May 16, 2016, the court entered judgment against plaintiff, citing the court's orders filed on “1/28/2016” and “5/10/2016.” Doc. 69.

         On May 23, 2016, plaintiff timely filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on the court's order granting the City ...


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.