{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Ahmed-Murray-v-Geithner-opinion10-7-11l

Ahmed-Murray-v-Geithner-opinion10-7-11l - Case...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Defendants filed two nearly identical motions for summary judgment—the difference being that the latter [dkt 67] is redacted to comply with a protective order. In deciding Defendants’ motion, the Court will consider the un-redacted papers filed in connection therewith. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KEVIN J. MURRAY, Plaintiff, Civil No. 08-15147 v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER and BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, Defendants. ________________________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse, in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on January 14, 2011 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt 57], Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt 66/67], 1 and Plaintiff’s motion to strike [dkt 79]. The parties have fully briefed the motions. The Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the parties’ papers such that the decision process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the motions be resolved on the briefs submitted. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 92 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 27
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon