This is Tracy's objection to the magistrate's order denying the motion to strike affirmative defenses. so pursuant to the Federal Rule Civil Procedure 72 (a), this is an objection and appeal of the magistrate's, order. And now it's before the district judge to rule on the partial summary judgment as well as the defendant's 12 c motion. So we've been waiting four or five months just for an order on those two, the partial summary judgment, unofficial liability for Tracy and, 12 c judgment on the pleadings for the defendants. And, so neither one of those have been ruled on.

Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury . . . .” https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/110763/harlow-v-fitzgerald/

Ever wondered how to win a legal battle without stepping foot in a courtroom? Dive into the game-changing power of summary judgment with tips straight from Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. This faceless video breaks down how plaintiffs can snag a victory when the defense can’t fight back. No fluff—just sharp, witty insights to turn your evidence into a knockout punch. Watch now and master the art of winning with Rule 56(c).

In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant police officers challenge an order of the district court denying them qualified immunity on Glik's constitutional claims. We conclude, based on the facts alleged, that Glik was exercising clearly-established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause. We therefore affirm. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/612667/glik-v-cunniffe/