From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Napier v. City of New Castle

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jul 3, 2007
Civil Action No. 06-1368 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 3, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-1368.

July 3, 2007


ORDER


AND NOW, this 3rd day of July, 2007, after the plaintiff, Marcy Napier, filed an action in the above-captioned case, and after a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment was filed by defendants, City of New Castle, Anthony Lagnese and Christopher Bouye, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge granting the parties ten days after being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, and upon consideration of the objections filed by plaintiff, and upon independent review of the record, and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 4) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims for malicious prosecution against all defendants and her state law claim for malicious prosecution against all individual defendants remain.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if the plaintiff desires to appeal from this Order she must do so within thirty (30) days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 3, Fed.R.App.P.


Summaries of

Napier v. City of New Castle

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jul 3, 2007
Civil Action No. 06-1368 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 3, 2007)
Case details for

Napier v. City of New Castle

Case Details

Full title:MARCY NAPIER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW CASTLE, ANTHONY LAGNESE…

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

Date published: Jul 3, 2007

Citations

Civil Action No. 06-1368 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 3, 2007)

Citing Cases

Woods v. Pettine

As opposed to malicious prosecution, a claim with which it is often paired, malicious abuse of process…

Poteat v. Lydon

As the Third Circuit recognized, liability for an abuse of process claim does not lie “where the [prosecutor]…