WINSLOW v. THE BOUROUGH OF MALVERN PENNSYLVANIA et al
| RANDALL WINSLOW |
| THE BOUROUGH OF MALVERN PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL MCMAHON, LLOYD DOUGLAS, THE TOWNSHIP OF WILLISTOWN, JOHN NARCISE and STEPHEN J. JONES |
| 2:2008cv01890 |
| April 15, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| P.I.: Other Office |
| Chester |
| JAN E. DUBOIS |
| Both |
| 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
38
ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS, THE TOWNSHOP OF WILLISTOWN, CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN NARCISE AND OFFICER STEPHEN J. JONES' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED. PLAITNIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO THESE DEFENDANTS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DEFENDANTS, THE BO ROUGH OF MALVERN, CHIEF MICHAEL MCMAHON AND SGT. LLOYD DOUGLAS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN: THE MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO DEFENDANTS THE BOROUGH OF MALVERN AND CHIEF MICHAEL MCMAHON. PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST THOSE DEFENDANTS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN DUE COURSE; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CAPTION OF THIS CASE SHALL BE AMENDED TO DELETE REFERENCE TO ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT SGT. LLOYD DOUGLAS, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 12/7/2009. 12/7/2009 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(ap, )
|
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 Eastern 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.
