RILEY v. DECARLO et al
| NATHAN RILEY |
| MICHAEL DECARLO, WALLACE DITTSWORTH, JEFF ROGERS, STEVE BLAZE, DORINA VARNER, JEFFREY A. BEARD, LOUIS FOLINO, ALEDA MENCHYK, NEDRO GREGO, J. NIEHENKE and FNU CUMBERLEDGE |
| 2:2011cv00537 |
| April 26, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Greene |
| Cathy Bissoon |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
73
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 63 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim regarding his tuberculosis test is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's state law claims , which were not addressed in the motion, are DISMISSED, without prejudice to refiling them in state court. As more fully stated in the Order. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 9/25/2012. A copy of this Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record. (dad)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER denying 56 Motion that the Court Order Defendant Folino to Provide Plaintiff With Six Hours of Law Library Time Three Times a Day, Seven Days Per Week, as more fully stated in the Order. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 1/19/2012. A copy of this Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record. (dad)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER denying 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, as more fully stated in the Order. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 12/28/2011. A copy of this Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record. (dad)
|
|
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that the Court, after reviewing the complaint 5 , the motion for preliminary injunction 6 , the supporting memorandum of law 7 , and particularly the nature of the allegations concerning Plaintiff's diet, and after giving the pro se pleadings liberal construction, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), decided to consider whether Plaintiff was or was not entitled to a temporary restraining order on the issues relating to his diet prior to formal service o n the Defendants. In light of the facts and considering the case law cited on the record during the course of the proceedings, the Court now holds that the Plaintiff is not entitled to a temporary restraining order and to the extent Plaintiff's pleadings or motion can be construed that he has requested a temporary restraining order, said request is denied, without prejudice; The hearing was transcribed and if any party desires a copy of the transcript it can be requested by contacting the chambers of Judge Fischer, at which time an appropriate order shall be entered. This matter is now referred back to Magistrate Judge Cathy Bissoon for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/3/11. (jg)
|
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.
