MARMOLEJOS et al v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
| MARVIN MARMOLEJOS and KEVIN WILLIAMS |
| PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and GLOBEL TEL*LINK CORP |
| 1:2017cv00013 |
| January 18, 2017 |
| 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
175
ORDER that Defendant's motion for summary judgment 155 is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against Defendant, but denied as to Plaintiffssupplemental claims, insofar as said claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to re-file the same in state court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment 152 and request for certification of a class action are DENIED. The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, dated January 9, 2019 172 , is adopted as the opinion of the court.The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed. Signed by Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 2/28/19. (lrw)
|
|
Filing
141
ORDER granting 38 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and adopting Report and Recommendations re 135 Report and Recommendations. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Barbara Rothstein on 3/12/2018. (kly)
|
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.
