From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hammonds v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 1, 2012
2:10cv444 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2012)

Opinion

2:10cv444

03-01-2012

RICHARD HAMMONDS, JD 8826 Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE II; JOHN DOE III; JOHN DOE IV; OFFICER RANDY JUSTICE; OFFICER KOVAC; OFFICER MAXWELL; OFFICER PENDAL; OFFICER EDWARDS; OFFICER YOUNG; OFFICER CHRONISTER;OFFICER HOLLO WAY; OFFICER WILLIAM FRANCIS; OFFICER BEST; SGT. ANDREW COULTER; WARDEN RAMON RUSTIN; CHIEF EXECUTIVE DAN ONORATO, Defendants,


Electronic Mail


District Judge David Stewart Cercone

Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy


MEMORANDUM ORDER

The above captioned case was initiated by the filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) on April 5, 2010, and was referred to a united states magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the local rales of court.

On February 7, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 66) recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 55) be granted with respect to Plaintiffs official liability claims against all Defendants and denied with respect to Plaintiffs individual liability claims except as to Defendants Onorato and Rustin, both of which should be terminated from this action. Plaintiff was served with the Report and Recommendation at his listed address and was advised that he had until February 24, 2012, to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed.

After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together with the Report and Recommendation the following order is entered:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, it is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs official liability claims against all Defendants and denied with respect to Plaintiffs individual liability claims except as to Defendants Onorato and Rustin, both of which are terminated from this action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.

______________

David Stewart Cercone

United States District Judge
cc: Richard A. Hammonds

JD-8826

SCI Frackville

1111 Altamont Blvd.

Frackville, PA 17931

(Via First Class Mail)

Craig E. Maravich, Esquire

Michael H. Wojcik, Esquire

(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)


Summaries of

Hammonds v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 1, 2012
2:10cv444 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2012)
Case details for

Hammonds v. Doe

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD HAMMONDS, JD 8826 Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE II; JOHN DOE…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 2012

Citations

2:10cv444 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2012)