DISCLAIMER:  Any unofficial case summaries below are prepared by the clerk's office
                        as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
172884P.pdf   01/04/2019  Thompson Awnings  v.  Joshua Fullerton
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-2884
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not err in denying 
   plaintiff's motion to disqualify all of the attorneys of the City of 
   Lincoln's law department where the attorney who first represented the city 
   and its employees in this Section 1983 had worked in the county public 
   defender's office during a portion of the time that office represented 
   plaintiff on criminal charges arising out of the incident at issue here; 
   there was nothing to support plaintiff's conjecture that the attorney, who 
   was not actively involved in the criminal matter, had confidential 
   information about the criminal case; further, the attorney, who withdrew 
   as the City's attorney when the possible conflict became known, was 
   screened from any further contact with the case and the attorney provided 
   an affidavit claiming no knowledge of the case from her previous 
   employment; evidentiary rulings with respect to excluding statements 
   plaintiff made about his medical examination after his release from jail 
   and admission of affidavits from the police officers affirmed; under 
   Nebraska law, plaintiff's admitted conduct qualified as obstruction of a 
   peace officer and resisting arrest, and the defendant officer had probable 
   cause to arrest plaintiff; there was no genuine disputes of material fact 
   between plaintiff's version of events and the arresting officers, and 
   their use of force was objectively reasonable; with respect to plaintiff's 
   claim for denial of medical care, defendant Banks's failure to inform jail 
   officials that hospital staff wanted a followup medical visit did not rise 
   to the level of conduct which would shock the contemporary conscience and 
   violate plaintiff's Due Process rights, and the district court did not err 
   in dismissing him from the action. Judge Colloton, concurring in part and 
   concurring in the judgment.