HOOKEY v. PELZER et al
Plaintiff: MEGAN HOOKEY
Defendant: JOSEPH PELZER, CHERYL MCGANITT and EDWARD STRAWN
Case Number: 2:2008cv01733
Filed: January 27, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office: Pittsburgh Office
County: Lycoming
Presiding Judge: Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 12, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 113 ORDER granting 103 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Pelzer, McGavitt, Strawn and Washington County ; adopting 112 Report and Recommendation dated May 10, 2013 as the opinion of the court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant s Sutherland and Pettit are DISMISSED from this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mark this case CLOSED. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 6/12/2013. (smc )
February 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 66 ORDER granting 41 Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Paul M. Pozonsky ; granting 52 Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Brian Gorman ; granting 57 Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Michael Fagella. Plaintiff's claims remain pending against defendants Joseph Pelzer, Cheryl McGavitt, Edward Strawn, and Lisa Sutherland. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation dated February 1, 2011 (ECF No. 64 ) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is remanded back to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 2/24/2011. (smc )
February 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 64 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the 41 MOTION to Dismiss filed by PAUL M. POZONSKY be granted, that the 57 MOTION to Dismiss filed by MICHAEL FAGELLA be granted and that the 52 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Brian Gorman be granted. Objections to R&R due by 2/18/2011. Signed by Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on January 31, 2011. (far)
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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: HOOKEY v. PELZER et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: MEGAN HOOKEY
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: JOSEPH PELZER
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: CHERYL MCGANITT
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: EDWARD STRAWN
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?