Olisky v. Town of East Longmeadow et al
| Dennis Olisky |
| Town of East Longmeadow, Town of East Longmeadow Department of Public Works, Douglas Mellis, Town of East Longmeadow Board of Selectman, Nicholas Breault, David Gromaski, John Collins and James Driscoll |
| 3:2014cv30168 |
| September 23, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Springfield Office |
| Hampden |
| Mark G. Mastroianni |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
45
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs federal claims - - those alleged civil rights violations falling under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count X), Plaintiffs Breach of Contract Claim predicated upon Article I, § ; 10 of the Constitution (Count II), and Plaintiffs Monnell claim (Count XI)are dismissed, as the court GRANTS Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted - (Dkt. No. 34.) The court dismisses Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim stemming from an alleged First Amendment violation, as well as his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim stemming from an alleged violation of his right to Procedural Due Process resulting from his cessation of employment with the T own of East Longmeadow, without prejudice. The court further exercises its discretion to dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs remaining state-law claims: Wrongful Termination (Count I), Breach of Contract (Count II), Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 258 (Count I V), Defamation (Count X), Common Law Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Count VII), Misrepresentation (Count VIII), Violation of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count IX), Violation of Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 12 §§ 11h and 11I (Count XIII), Implied Contrast/Promissory Estoppel (Count XIV), Retaliation and Refusal to Hire under MASS. GEN. LAWS. ch. 151B (Count XV), Interference with Rights Under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 151B (Count XVI). Finally, in light of this ruling on Dkt No. 34, the court need not rule on Defendant, James Driscolls motion to dismiss due to insufficient service of process- Motion found as MOOT - (Dkt. No. 13.) The case may now be closed. The clerk shall enter judgment for Defendants. It is So Ordered. (Finn, Mary) Modified on 5/21/2015 to correct the text. (Finn, Mary).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
