HOPKINS v. APADACA et al
| KENTLIN HOPKINS |
| APADACA, JOHN DOE, BURKHART, BOCK, NICHOLSON, SFRAZISER, BARGER, CARATELLI, COLEMAN, RISKUS, MOLE, "SUPERVISOR and PALMER |
| 1:2010cv00166 |
| July 9, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Erie Office |
| Forest |
| Susan Paradise Baxter |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
85
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER: AND NOW, this 4th Day of June, 2012; IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment 80 shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Accordingly, JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of the remaining Defendants and against the Plaintiff, Kentlin Hopkins. The Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Baxter on May 10, 2012 84 is adopted as the opinion of this Court. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 6/4/06. (kas)
|
|
Filing
72
MEMORANDUM ORDER: AND NOW, this 2nd Day of September, 2011; IT IS ORDERED that the DOC Defendants' partial motion to dismiss second amended complaint 38 shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (i) Said motion is GRANTED with respect to: (a) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Defendant Apadaca premised upon Plaintiff's placement in the RHU; (b) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Palmer, Riskus, and C aratelli premised upon alleged verbal harassment; (c) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment against Defendants Barger and Apadaca premised upon alleged deliberate indifference claim to Plaintiff's serious medical needs; and (d) Plaintiff's Firs t Amendment claims against Defendants Barger and Apadaca premised upon the alleged violation of his religious rights. (ii) Said motion is DENIED with respect to: (a) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Barger, Straziser, and Pa lmer premised upon their alleged refused to provide Plaintiff food; and (b) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants Barger and Straziser premised upon their alleged refusal to allow Plaintiff to attend P.R.C. and mi sconduct hearings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment filed by Defendant Dr. Jeffrey Moll 44 shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ireland's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint 50 shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Beverly O'Rourke, CRNP 60 shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Based upon the foregoing, IT IS FURTH ER ORDERED that Defendants Apadaca, Burkhart, Nicholson, Ireland, ORourke, Riskus, Caratelli, and Dr. Moll shall be terminated as parties to this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority granted to federal courts in the Prison Litigati on Reform Act, that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants "John Doe Supervisor," Lt. Bock, and "Supervisor" shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED due to Plaintiff's failure to service these Defendants in accordance with Ru le 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, accordingly, these Defendants shall likewise be terminated as parties to this case. The Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Baxter on August 3, 2011 67 is adopted as the opinion of this Court. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 09/02/2011. (kas)
|
|
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM ORDER: AND NOW, this 14th Day of February, 2011; IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction 4 be, and hereby is, DENIED. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, verbally entered on the record on August 18, 2010 12 , is adopted as the opinion of this Court. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 02/14/2011. (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.
