From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rearick v. Spanier

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 30, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-624 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-624

04-30-2012

DEBORAH REARICK, Plaintiff, v. GRAHAM SPANIER, et al. Defendants


(JUDGE CAPUTO)


ORDER

NOW, this 30th day of April, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Defendants Spanier, Wiedemer, Horvath, Doncsecz, Mattern, Maney, and Killian's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 36) is GRANTED.
(2) Defendants Pennsylvania State University, Nirnberger, and Courtney's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 47) is GRANTED.
(3) Plaintiff's First Amendment Retaliation Claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
(4) Plaintiff is given twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order to file a third amended complaint solely as to her claim under the Second Amendment. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action.

___________________________

A. Richard Caputo

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rearick v. Spanier

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 30, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-624 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2012)
Case details for

Rearick v. Spanier

Case Details

Full title:DEBORAH REARICK, Plaintiff, v. GRAHAM SPANIER, et al. Defendants

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Apr 30, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-624 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2012)

Citing Cases

Staples v. United States

(Doc. 19, p. 2). However, it is determined that by granting Plaintiff's motion to amend and entering his…

Falat v. Cnty. of Hunterdon

Because "there is nothing in [plaintiff's] Amended Complaint alleging that her complaints were made with any…