From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. Kesselring

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Dec 6, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1739 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1739.

December 6, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2010, upon consideration of plaintiffs' objections and supporting brief (Docs. 103, 104) to the memorandum and non-dispositive order of the Honorable William T. Prince dated October 27, 2010 (Doc. 102), as well as the response of defendants Brady, Kesselring, Rowe, Whitten, and Zumbrum (Doc. 105) thereto, and the court concluding that plaintiffs' amended complaint remains clearly deficient in its failure to apprise the reader of necessary factual details (i.e. . . . "who is alleged to have done what to whom and when." October 27, 2010 Memorandum at p. 5), and the court finding no portion of Judge Prince's order to be "clearly erroneous or contrary to law," See L.R. 72.2, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' objections are DENIED. It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file their second amended complaint on or before December 28, 2010, and responses thereto shall be filed in accordance with the procedures and subject to the conditions set forth in Judge Prince's October 27, 2010, Memorandum and Order.


Summaries of

Morris v. Kesselring

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Dec 6, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1739 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2010)
Case details for

Morris v. Kesselring

Case Details

Full title:DAVID L. MORRIS, PAMELA MORRIS, and RANDY MORRIS, Plaintiffs v. RONALD…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1739 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2010)

Citing Cases

Morris v. W. Manheim Twp.

Thus, the motion for a more definite statement was granted. See Morris v. Kesselring, et al., No.…

Morris v. W. Manheim Twp.

Thus, the motion for a more definite statement was granted. See Morris v. Kesselring, et al., No.…