From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hastings v. Smeal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 12, 2012
Civil Action No. 11 - 93J (W.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11 - 93J

03-12-2012

GEORGE HASTINGS, Plaintiff, v. MS. SHINIG SMEAL, et al., Defendants.


District Judge Kim R. Gibson

Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan


MEMORANDUM ORDER

On April 14, 2011, a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was filed in the above captioned case. (ECF No. 1). The motion was granted (ECF No. 2) and Plaintiff's Complaint was filed that same day (ECF No. 3). This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rules of Court for Magistrates.

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on July 18, 2011. (ECF No. 33.) On July 25, 2011, Defendants Smeal, Moore, Montgomery, Turner, Burns, Pleacher, Paul, Heide, Cree, Upton, and Bennits (collectively, "DOC Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 38.) On August 5, 2011, Defendant Karamudi filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 40.)

On January 19, 2012, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 52.) The magistrate judge further recommended that Defendant Karamudi's motion for summary judgment in the alternative be denied as moot. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff was served with the Report and Recommendation at his listed address and was advised that he had until February 28, 2012, to file written objections. No objections were filed to the Report.

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

AND NOW, this ____ day of March, 2012,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the DOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Karamudi (ECF No. 40) is treated solely as a Motion to Dismiss and is GRANTED. The motion for summary judgment in the alternative is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 52) dated January 19, 2012, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

By the Court:

______________________

Kim R. Gibson

United States District Judge

cc: George Hastings

1807 A Chichester Avenue

Boothwyn,PA 19061

Counsel of Record


Summaries of

Hastings v. Smeal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 12, 2012
Civil Action No. 11 - 93J (W.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2012)
Case details for

Hastings v. Smeal

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE HASTINGS, Plaintiff, v. MS. SHINIG SMEAL, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 12, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11 - 93J (W.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2012)