Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

12-21-2006

Santiago v. York Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-4729

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

Recommended Citation "Santiago v. York" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 45. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/45

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________

No. 05-4729 __________

ANIBAL SANTIAGO Appellant, vs. YORK CITY, PENNSYLVANIA; THE HONORABLE JOHN BRENNER, Mayor and Agent of the York City, Pa.; CHARLES H. ROBERTSON, Former Mayor and Agent of the York City, Pa.; THE YORK CITY POLICE DEPT., A police department organized and existing in York City, Pa.; HERBERT F. GROSFSCSIK, Former Police Commissioner and Agent of Defendants York City, Pa. and York City Police Department; POLICE CHIEF MICHAEL HILL, Chief of Police and Agent for Defendants York City, Pa. and York City Police Department,

Appellees.

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Pennsylvania (No. 02-cv-1217) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

__________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) November 28, 2006 ___________

Before: FUENTES and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK, District Judge 1

(Opinion Filed: December 21, 2006)

1 The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. OPINION

Per Curiam:

Substantially for the reasons set forth in District Judge Kane’s Memorandum and

Order of September 26, 2005, this Court will affirm the District Court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of defendant York City.