NYKIEL v. BOROUGH OF SHARPSBURG et al
| CHERYL NYKIEL |
| BOROUGH OF SHARPSBURG, SHARPSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, LEO RUDZKI, BOROUGH OF ASPINWALL, ASPINWALL POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHN SABOL, BOROUGH OF BLAWNOX, BLAWNOX POLICE DEPARTMENT, GEORGE BUCHA, THOMAS DUFFY, MATT FUSCO, TOWNSHIP OF SHALER, SHALER POLICE DEPARTMENT, BRIAN KELLY, BOROUGH OF ETNA, ETNA POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM GROVER and CHAD MITCHELL |
| 2:2008cv00813 |
| June 12, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Allegheny |
| Gary L. Lancaster |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343 Violation of Civil Rights |
| Defendant |
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
208
ORDER directing Clerk of Court to mark CASE CLOSED pending submission of a stipulation of discontinuance for approval by the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 10/12/11. (map)
|
|
Filing
196
ORDER granting 194 Joint Motion to Amend Caption, to reflect remaining defendants as Leo Rudzki, Thomas Duffy and Chad Mitchell. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 6/10/11. (map)
|
|
Filing
171
MEMORANDUM and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 155 Joint Motion for Summary Judgment; Defendants Borough of Sharpsburg Police Department and Borough of Etna Police Department are not legal entities separate from the Boroughs and are not subject to suit; These defendants are dismissed with prejudice from this action; Summary Judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff's Section 1983 claims for excessive force in Count I against defendants Duffy, Mitchell and Rudzki, in their individual c apacities; Summary Judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff's request for punitive damages against defendants Duffy, Mitchell and Rudzki; Summary Judgment is GRANTED in all other aspects, as stated more fully in the order. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 3/8/11. (map)
|
|
Filing
154
ORDER granting 153 Joint Motion to Continue Final Case Management Order; Any Motions for Summary Judgment shall be due by 6/22/2010; Any response to a Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed by 7/22/2010; Any reply to a response shall be filed by 8/6/2010; Court will issue an Amended Final Case Management Order upon resolution of the Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 5/26/10. (map)
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER directing that, upon consideration of 141 Motion to Strike Portions of the Report and Opinions of Dr. Omalu and to Strike the Reports and Opinions of Dr. Smitz and Mr. Van Blaricom, and plaintiff's response thereto, a Daubert Hearing will be held on 5/12/2010 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 3A. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 4/24/10. (map)
|
|
Filing
140
ORDER granting 139 Joint Motion for Leave to File and for a Ruling on Daubert Motion Prior to Summary Judgment; Moving Defendants' Daubert Motion shall be filed on or before 1/25/2010; Plaintiff's response thereto shall be filed on or before 2/24/2010; Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the Court's decision resolving the Daubert Motion. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 1/19/10. (map)
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER granting 134 Stipulation of Dismissal of defendant TOWNSHIP OF INDIANA with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 10/22/09. (map)
|
|
Filing
131
ORDER granting 130 Stipulation of Dismissal of defendant TOWNSHIP OF HAMPTON with prejudice. Signed by Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 9/8/09. (map)
|
|
Filing
110
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 85 Motion to Dismiss; Motion is DENIED as to dismissal of the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and as to plaintiff's punitive damages claim against defendant Vith; Motion is G RANTED as to plaintiff's punitive damages claim against defendants Borough of Millvale and the Millvale Police Department; 86 Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part; Motion is DENIED as to the section 1983 claim alleging that the municipal defendants had a custom or policy that inflicted injury; Motion is GRANTED as to dismissal of the state law claims for battery, wrongful death, survival, and indemnification against defendants Township of Hampton and Hampton Police Depa rtment, as to plaintiff's punitive damages claim against defendants Township of Hampton and Hampton Police Department and as to dismissal of defendant Hampton Police Department; 90 Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part; Motio n is DENIED as to dismissal of the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and as to plaintiff's punitive damages claim against defendant Middlebee; Motion is GRANTED as to plaintiff's punitive damages claim against defendants O' ;Hara Township and the O'Hara Police Department, as to dismissal of defendant O'Hara Police Department, and as to dismissal of the state law claims for battery, wrongful death, and survival against defendant O'Hara Township; 85 Motion for More Definite Statement, 86 Motion for More Definite Statement and 90 Motion for More Definite Statement are DENIED. Signed by Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 3/19/09. (map)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER granting 77 Motion for Leave to Amend Second Amended Complaint; Plaintiff's Amended Complaint shall be filed on or before 1/12/2009. Signed by Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 12/29/08. (map)
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER granting 74 Stipulation to Dismiss defendant Brian Kelly pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(I). Signed by Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 12/18/08. (map)
|
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 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.
