Case Name: Michael R. PARDUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOBILE COUNTY, AL, Saraland, City of, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-27
Citations: 279 F. App'x 789
Docket Number: No. 07-14757
Parties: Michael R. PARDUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOBILE COUNTY, AL, Saraland, City of, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
Michael R. PARDUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOBILE COUNTY, AL, Saraland, City of, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-14757.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 27, 2008.
James G. Curenton, Jr., James G. Curenton, Jr., P.C., Fairhope, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Thomas O. Gaillard, III, Galloway, Wettermark, Everest, Rutens & Gaillard, LLP, Mobile, AL, Andrew W. Christman, Gidiere, Hinton & Herndon, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, District Judge.
Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Michael Pardue, appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and pendent state law claims against Mobile County, Baldwin County, the City of Saraland, and various individual defendants employed by those governmental entities. Pardue also challenges an earlier district court order which dismissed several defendants based on ab solute prosecutorial immunity. After reviewing the record, reading the parties' briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we vacate the district court's orders and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
First, concerning the statute of limitations argument, we agree with Judge Vollmer's original ruling that Pardue could not have filed his § 1983 claims before the charges were nolle prossed. Moreover, because we believe that the allegations contained in the complaint against the prosecutors should more appropriately be determined on a motion for summary judgment, we vacate the district court's orders and remand this case.
VACATED and REMANDED.
. We also vacate the district court's dismissal of the pendent claims.