From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pressley v. Johnson

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 28, 2007
Civil Action No. 01-2350 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 28, 2007)

Summary

finding that an alleged incident that occurred over a year after Defendants knew of the protected activity did not support a retaliation claim

Summary of this case from McDOWELL v. LITZ

Opinion

Civil Action No. 01-2350.

September 28, 2007


ORDER


The above captioned case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ila Jeanne Sensenich for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. The case was transferred to Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on April 6, 2004.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 264), filed on September 6, 2007, recommended the Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Commonwealth Defendants (Doc. No. 255) be granted. The Plaintiff was served with the report and recommendation at S.C.I. Mahanoy, 301 Morea Road, Frackville, PA 17932, and defense counsel was served at their address of record. All parties were advised they were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written objections to the report and recommendation. No objections have been filed.

After review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2007;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Commonwealth Defendants (Doc. No. 255) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 264) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated September 6, 2007, is adopted as the opinion of the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case closed.


Summaries of

Pressley v. Johnson

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 28, 2007
Civil Action No. 01-2350 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 28, 2007)

finding that an alleged incident that occurred over a year after Defendants knew of the protected activity did not support a retaliation claim

Summary of this case from McDOWELL v. LITZ
Case details for

Pressley v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:SEAN PRESSLEY, Plaintiff, v. SUPT. P. JOHNSON, C.O. CLARK, C.O. YOLINSKY…

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

Date published: Sep 28, 2007

Citations

Civil Action No. 01-2350 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 28, 2007)

Citing Cases

McDOWELL v. LITZ

The lack of temporal proximity alone makes this theory highly implausible. See Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers…