Sandusky v. County of Adams, Pennsylvania et al
William Scott Sandusky |
County of Adams, Pennsylvania, County of Adams' Commissioners, Randy Phiel, Jim Martin, Marty Karstetter Qually, County of Adams Public Defender and Kristin Rice |
1:2013cv02507 |
October 4, 2013 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Harrisburg Office |
Adams |
Martin C. Carlson |
Christopher C. Conner |
Employment |
29 U.S.C. ยง 621 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 36 ORDER (Memorandum 35 filed previously as separate docket entry) - ORDER & JUDGMENT - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Deft's MSJ 18 is GRANTED.; 2. Deft's MILs 27 & 29 are DENIED as MOOT.; 3. JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of defendant and against plaintiff. ; 4. Clrk of Ct directed to CLOSE case. (See order & jdgmt for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 7/31/15. (ki) |
Filing 13 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson 8 in its entirety, GRANTING defts' MTD 3 to extent it seeks dismissal of Sandusky's claims against the individual defts & DENIED in in all other respects, DISMISSING claims against Randy Phiel, Jim Martin, Marty Karsteter Qually & Kristin Rice with prejudice, & noting case mgmt order to issue by separate order. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 4/21/14. (ki) |
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 Middle 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.