KOVAC v. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION et al
| DONALD KOVAC |
| PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, MITCHELL RUBIN, GEORGE HATALOWICH, MELVIN SHELTON and MARK ROWE |
| 2:2009cv00400 |
| April 6, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Allegheny |
| Terrence F. McVerry |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
59
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 45 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 48 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 12/15/10. (mh, )
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Mark Rowe; granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Mitchell Rubin, Ge orge Hatalowich, and Melvin Shelton; denying without prejudice 10 -2 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Mitchell Rubin, George Hatalowich, and Melvin Shelton. It is further ORDERED that, on or before S eptember 1, 2009, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to correct the noted deficiencies in his original complaint, or file a notice of intent to stand on the current complaint. See Memorandum Opinion for details. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 08/11/09. (bsc)
|
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.
