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.