From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stuckey v. Blessing

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 15, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-436 (M.D. Pa. May. 15, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-436

05-15-2012

KEVIN LEE STUCKEY Plaintiff v. D. BLESSING, et al. Defendants


(Chief Judge Kane)


(Magistrate Judge Carlson)


ORDER

Before the Court in the above-captioned action is an April 26, 2012 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. No timely objections have been filed.

AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 2012, upon review of the record and the applicable law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson.

2) The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 64) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Summary Judgment in GRANTED in favor of Defendants Rush and Bennett. Summary Judgment is DENIED in favor of Defendants Blessing, Kline, Royer, Griffith and Herr.

3) All pretrial motions having been resolved. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file a motion for the appointment of counsel to represent him in this matter.

___________________________

YVETTE KANE, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Stuckey v. Blessing

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 15, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-436 (M.D. Pa. May. 15, 2012)
Case details for

Stuckey v. Blessing

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN LEE STUCKEY Plaintiff v. D. BLESSING, et al. Defendants

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

Date published: May 15, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-436 (M.D. Pa. May. 15, 2012)