From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Diguglielmo

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Nov 30, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-2686 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-2686.

November 30, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2010, based on the foregoing Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to the following claims: (1) Count One, Plaintiff's retaliation claim related to the May 28, 2006 misconduct charge, brought against Dombrosky; and (2) Count Two, Plaintiff's due process claim brought against Dohman and Radle.

2. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Thomas Dohman, William Radle, John Moyer, and Ronald Quick and against Plaintiff on Count One, Plaintiff's claim of retaliation.

3. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants John Moyer, Jason Dombrosky, and Ronald Quick and against Plaintiff on Count Two, Plaintiff's due process claim.

4. A telephone conference will be held with counsel on December 8, 2010 at 10 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel will initiate the call, and when all parties are on the line, counsel will call chambers at 267.299.7520.


Summaries of

Miller v. Diguglielmo

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Nov 30, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-2686 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2010)
Case details for

Miller v. Diguglielmo

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH MALIK MILLER v. DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, et al

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

Date published: Nov 30, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-2686 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2010)

Citing Cases

Garcia v. PrimeCare Med., Inc.

"To properly exhaust administrative remedies, an inmate must appeal a grievance through all administrative…