Lewis v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Full title: DAVIS LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Apr 27, 2007

2:06cv1162, Electronic Filing (W.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2007)

Opinion

2:06cv1162, Electronic Filing.

April 27, 2007

MEMORANDUM ORDER

DAVID CERCONE, District Judge

On September 13, 2006, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Francis X. Caiazza for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.

On April 5, 2007, the magistrate judge issued a Report (Document No. 19) recommending that the Defendants' renewed request for change of venue (Document No. 16) be denied, and that their Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 16) be granted in part and denied in part.

Service of the Report and Recommendation was made on the parties, and no objections have been filed. After a review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered:

AND NOW, on this 27^th day of April, 2007, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(a) the Defendants' renewed request for a change of venue ( see Document No. 16) is DENIED;

(b) their Motion to Dismiss ( Document No. 16) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

(c) the following claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:

(1) all claims made under the PHRA;

(2) the claims for monetary relief made pursuant to the ADA and for punitive damages under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act;

(3) the claims for prospective relief under the ADA against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Police;

(4) the claims alleging that Davis was a victim of retaliation in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act; and

(5) the claims alleging that the Defendants failed to accommodate the Plaintiff's disability under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act;

(d) the Defendants' Motion to dismiss is DENIED regarding:

(1) prospective relief against Defendant Miller for alleged discrimination in violation of the ADA; and

(2) the claims of discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Caiazza dated April 5, 2007, is hereby adopted as the opinion of the District Court.