Hammond et al v. City of Wilkes-Barre et al
| Plaintiff: |
Tyler Hammond and Antonia Hammond |
| Defendant: |
City of Wilkes-Barre, Thomas M. Leighton and William E. Vinsko, Jr. |
| Case Number: |
3:2009cv02310 |
| Filed: |
November 24, 2009 |
| Court: |
US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Office: |
Scranton Office |
| County: |
Luzerne |
| Presiding Judge: |
A. Richard Caputo |
| Presiding Judge: |
Malachy E. Mannion |
| Nature of Suit: |
Civil Rights: Other |
| Cause of Action: |
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Jury Demanded By: |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed |
Document Text |
| June 5, 2014 |
Filing
120
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry)(1)Defendants motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 98), is GRANTED;(2)Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 99), is DENIED;(3)Plaintiffs §1983 claims against Leo Glodzik III are D ISMISSED;(4)Plaintiffs state law claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3);(5)Defendants motion to strike, (Doc. 111), is DISMISSED, (6)The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for defendants, and;(7)The Clerk is directed to close the case.Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 6/5/14. (bs)
|
| August 14, 2012 |
Filing
67
ORDER - adopting in part and rejecting in part - 61 Report and Recommendations. (1) Count 1 will be Dismissed w/prejudice; (2) Pltfs claim for substantive due process under the 14th Amendment will be DISMISSED W/PREJUDICE; (3) Pltf's claim fo r due process under the 5th Amendment will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (4) Pltf's official capacity claims against the individual defts Leighton, Vinsko, and Glodzik are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 8/14/2012 (rm, )
|
| March 30, 2011 |
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting in part and rejecting in part Report and Recommendations re 13 ,granting 6 Motion to Dismiss; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the report and recommendation (Doc. 13) is REJECTED IN PART and ADOPTED IN PART as follows: (1) T o the extent that it recommends denying the defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. 6), it is REJECTED. (2) To the extent that it recommends granting the defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. 6), it is ADOPTED.The defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. The complaint is DISMISSED entirely. The clerk of court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 3/30/11 (jam, )
|
Access additional case information on PACER
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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?