Robertson v. Samuels et al
Plaintiff: Marco Miguel Robertson
Defendant: J.E. Thomas, Charles Samuels, Jr. and Kevin L Pigos, Dr.
Case Number: 3:2013cv02500
Filed: October 3, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office: Scranton Office
County: Union
Presiding Judge: A. Richard Caputo
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 30, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED.(2) Defendants Samuels and Thomas are DISMISSED from the action with prejudice.(3) Plaintiffs Mot ion for A Protective/Restraining Order Against USP Lewisburg (Doc. 13) is DENIED without prejudice.(4)The Complaint should be served on the remaining Defendant, Dr. Pigos. (5)The matter is RECOMMITTED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings.Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 1/30/14. (jam)
January 6, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: (1) Defendants Samuels and Thomas Should be dismissed with prejudice; (2) Robertsons motion for protective order (Doc. 13), which seeks wide-ranging injunctive relief should be denied without prejudice; and (3) The complaint should be served on the sole remaining named defendant Dr. Pigos. Objections to R&R due by 1/24/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on January 6, 2014. (kjn)
November 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(1)Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.(2) Magistrate Judge Carlsons Report and Recommendation to Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within this time period, his claims against Defendants Samuels and Thomas will be dismissed without prejudice. (3)The matter is RECOMMITTED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 11/7/13. (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

Search for this case: Robertson v. Samuels et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: J.E. Thomas
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Charles Samuels, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Kevin L Pigos, Dr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Marco Miguel Robertson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?