VAN SCOTT v. CHERISH et al
| KARL VAN SCOTT |
| JOSH CHERISH, SHELLY TAYLOR, ROXANN CAMPBELL, DIANNE OSTROWSKY, JAMES BUCHANON, KELLY MCKENZIE, MICHAEL SABOUSKY, JEFF RUDITIS, FOSTER LYLES and B. SMITH |
| 1:2009cv00134 |
| June 10, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Erie Office |
| Venango |
| Susan Paradise Baxter |
| Sean J. McLaughlin |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
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
56
MEMORANDUM ORDER: AND NOW, this 25th Day of October, 2011; IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Ostrowsky, Buchanon, McKenzie, Sabousky, Ruditis, Lyles, Smith, and Campbell shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED from this case due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute his claims against them. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on October 4, 2011 55 , is adopted as the opinion of this Court. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 10/25/2011. (kas)
|
|
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER: AND NOW, this 4th Day of August, 2011; IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment 33 shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: 1. Said motion is GRANTED insofar as i t relates to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim premised on the Defendants' alleged indifference to his health and safety; and 2. Said motion is DENIED insofar as it requests that Defendants Ostrowsky, Buchanon, McKenzie, Sabousky, Ruditis, Lyles, Smith, and Campbell be dismissed from this action due to their lack of personal involvement in the alleged violation of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to medical privacy; and 3. Said motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff� 39;s claim for compensatory damages; and 4. Said motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against the Defendants in their official capacities; and 5. Said motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's claim f or declaratory and injunctive relief inasmuch as those claims are moot; and 6. Said motion is DENIED insofar as it otherwise relates to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right-to-medical privacy-claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before Aug ust 24, 2011, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, consistent with the terms of this Memorandum Order and Magistrate Judge Baxter's July 14, 2011 Report and Recommendation. The amended complaint shall identify: (i) the supervisory Defenda nts whom Plaintiff claims had knowledge of Defendant Taylor's alleged disclosure of Plaintiff's medical condition to other inmates, and (ii) the basis upon which each such supervisory Defendant is alleged to have been personally involved in the alleged misconduct. Failure to file an amended complaint on or before August 24, 2011 will be construed by this Court as an indication that Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue his claims against the supervisory Defendants. In accordance with the foregoing, JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of the Defendants, and against Plaintiff, with respect to Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 that his federal constitutional rights were violated by the Defendants' alleged indifference to his health and safety. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on July 14, 2011 49 , is adopted as the opinion of this Court. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 08/04/2011. (kas)
|
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 Western 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.
