From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

JORDAN v. MEL BLOUNT YOUTH HOME OF PENNSYLVANIA

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
May 26, 2006
Civil Action No. 05-1331 (W.D. Pa. May. 26, 2006)

Summary

Noting that by failing to respond to an issue in her brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, the plaintiff had apparently conceded the issue

Summary of this case from Landis v. US Airways, Inc.

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-1331.

May 26, 2006


ORDER


The above captioned case was filed on September 23, 2005, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.

The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15), filed on April 4, 2006, recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) be granted as to (a) Plaintiff's request for punitive damages under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa.C.S.A. § 1421, and (b) Plaintiffs claims against the individual Defendants contained in Count III which, to the extent they state a valid claim, are redundant. It also recommended that the motion be denied in all other respects. Counsel of record were served with the Report and Recommendation and were advised they had ten (10) days from the date of service to file written objections to the report and recommendation. No objections have been filed. After review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the report and recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2006;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's request for punitive damages under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa.C.S.A. § 1421.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs claims against the individual Defendants contained in Count III.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED in all other respects.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated April 4, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the court.


Summaries of

JORDAN v. MEL BLOUNT YOUTH HOME OF PENNSYLVANIA

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
May 26, 2006
Civil Action No. 05-1331 (W.D. Pa. May. 26, 2006)

Noting that by failing to respond to an issue in her brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, the plaintiff had apparently conceded the issue

Summary of this case from Landis v. US Airways, Inc.
Case details for

JORDAN v. MEL BLOUNT YOUTH HOME OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case Details

Full title:DIANA L. JORDAN, Plaintiff, v. MEL BLOUNT YOUTH HOME OF PENNSYLVANIA, MEL…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: May 26, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 05-1331 (W.D. Pa. May. 26, 2006)

Citing Cases

Wormack v. Shinseki

Plaintiff is correct. Claims under the Equal Pay Act do not have to be exhausted administratively.County of…

Landis v. US Airways, Inc.

Landis has not addressed Boeing's argument in this regard and, thus, has seemingly conceded the issue. See…