holding that the defendant was not subject to suit for monetary damages because the plaintiff did not specify the capacity in which he sued the defendant, and it was therefore presumed that he was sued in his official capacity, citing Wells
Summary of this case from Moore v. City of HarrimanNos. 95-1935, 95-1981.
December 16, 1996.
Appeal from the W.D.Mich.
AFFIRMED.
holding that the defendant was not subject to suit for monetary damages because the plaintiff did not specify the capacity in which he sued the defendant, and it was therefore presumed that he was sued in his official capacity, citing Wells
Summary of this case from Moore v. City of Harrimanconcluding that “eight defendant Macomb County Friend of the Court employees [were] entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from suit”
Summary of this case from Gaines v. Hagertyaffirming district court's order dismissing Marin's claim
Summary of this case from Marin v. Wells Fargo, N.A.affirming district court's order dismissing Marin's claim
Summary of this case from Marin v. Escondido Care Ctr.affirming district court's order dismissing Marin's claim
Summary of this case from Marin v. Escondido Care Ctr.Full title:Progressive Architects/Engineers/Planners, Inc. v. Security Ins. Co. of…
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Date published: Dec 16, 1996
plaint for money damages because the plaintiff did not specify capacity in which the defendants were being…
Lansing Board of Water Light v. Deerfield Ins. Co.Progressive, 1:93-CV-539 (W.D.Mich. Dec. 13, 1994) (Miles, J.), cited in 103 F.3d 130, at *5-*6 (6th Cir.…