THOMAS v. STANEK et al
| BRANDON THOMAS |
| DANIEL STANEK, LUPPINO CHRISTOPHER, DAN RUSH, ROBERT WILSON, JOHN DOE, CITY OF WASHINGTON and EUGENE A. VITTONE |
| 2:2014cv01415 |
| October 17, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Washington |
| Terrence F. McVerry |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 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
26
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 the Motion to Dismiss filed by Daniel Stanek, Christopher Luppino, Daniel Rush, and Robert Wilson; and granting 10 Motion to Dismiss filed by Eugene Vittone. To wit, the official-capacity cl aims against these Defendants Stanek, Luppino, Rush, and Wilson are DISMISSED and John Doe is DISMISSED as a Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). All of the claims against Defendant Vittone, in both his individual and official capacity, are DI SMISSED. The Defendant Officers shall file an answer to Plaintiffs amended complaint on or before March 16, 2015. The parties shall confer as necessary and shall file with the Court the Stipulation Selecting ADR Process and the Rule 26(f) Report on or before April 13, 2015. The Initial Case Management Conference is hereby SCHEDULED on May 1, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 6C. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 2/23/2015. (rjw)
|
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.
