THOMPSON v. PETROF

THOMPSON v. PETROF

Plaintiff:	DIANNE M. THOMPSON
Defendant:	MATTHEW PETROF
Case Number:	1:2010cv00123
Filed:	May 19, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Erie Office
County:	McKean
Presiding Judge:	Sean J. McLaughlin
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 12, 2014	Filing 83 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 5/12/14. (bdb)
June 11, 2012	Filing 37 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF JUDGMENT: AND NOW, to wit, this 11th Day of June, 2012, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment 25 shall be, and hereby i s, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Said motion is GRANTED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim as well as her Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. As to these claims, JUDGMENT shall be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the Defendant, Matthew Petrof, and against the Plaintiff, Dianne M. Thompson. 2. Said motion shall be, and hereby is, DENIED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims premised upon false arrest and a compelled blood draw. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 6/11/12. (kas)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 12, 2014

Filing 83 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 5/12/14. (bdb)

June 11, 2012

Filing 37 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF JUDGMENT: AND NOW, to wit, this 11th Day of June, 2012, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment 25 shall be, and hereby i s, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Said motion is GRANTED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim as well as her Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. As to these claims, JUDGMENT shall be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the Defendant, Matthew Petrof, and against the Plaintiff, Dianne M. Thompson. 2. Said motion shall be, and hereby is, DENIED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims premised upon false arrest and a compelled blood draw. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 6/11/12. (kas)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Pennsylvania Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: THOMPSON v. PETROF
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: DIANNE M. THOMPSON
Represented By:	Gregory A. Henry
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: MATTHEW PETROF
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?