Postie v. Frederick et al
Frederick A. Postie |
Sergeant Duane Frederick, Adam Sinton, Jr., Rush Township, Corey Herring and Carl Bachart |
3:2014cv00317 |
February 21, 2014 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Scranton Office |
Schuylkill |
Malachy E Mannion |
Karoline Mehalchick |
Other Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 76 ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry),Defendant Fredericks limited objections to the report and recommendation of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc. 72, Doc. 73), are OVERRULED.Judge Mehalchicks report and recommendation, (Doc. 71), is AD OPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.The defendants motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 63), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/7/2018 01:30 PM in Scranton before Honorable Malachy E Mannion. Jury Selection & Trial set for 6/25/2018 09:30 AM in Scranton before Honorable Malachy E Mannion. (See order for details)Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 4/11/18. (bs) |
Filing 53 ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry), Rush Township terminated. (1)the report and recommendation of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc. 51), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY;The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE defendant Rush Township from this action.The matter is remanded to Judge Mehalchick for further proceedings. (See document for details).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 8/29/16. (bs) |
Filing 43 MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 35 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Adam Sinton, Jr., Sergeant Duane Frederick, Rush Township. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick on 11/23/2015. (cw) |
Filing 29 ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry) (1)The report of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc. 22), is ADOPTED, IN PART;(2)The defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint, (Doc. 15), is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART;(3)The plaint iffs objection, (Doc. 23), will be sustained regarding the finding that Heck barred his constitutional claims against defendants Frederick and Sinton; (4)The defendants motion is DENIED with respect to the plaintiffs constitutional claims against def endants Frederick and Sinton under §1983, and the court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law tort claims against these defendants;(5)The plaintiffs claims against defendant Rush Township under Monell are DISM ISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;(6)The plaintiffs due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;(7)All of the plaintiffs claims under the Fifth Amendment are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;(8)The plaintiffs claims against defendants Bachart and Herring are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and these defendants are dismissed from this case;(9)The plaintiffs request for declaratory judgment is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (10)The plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint regarding h is claims against defendant Rush Township and to clarify exactly which claims against defendants Frederick and Sinton are under §1983 or under state law, on or before April 6, 2015; and(11)The case is REMANDED to Judge Mehalchick for further pro ceedings. re 15 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Adam Sinton, Jr., Corey Herring, Sergeant Duane Frederick, Rush Township, Carl Bachart, ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick; Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 3/17/15. (bs) |
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.