WESLEY v. FINLEY

WESLEY v. FINLEY

Plaintiff:	DANIEL WESLEY
Defendant:	BOBBY FINLEY
Case Number:	2:2010cv01194
Filed:	September 10, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Pittsburgh Office
County:	Northumberland
Presiding Judge:	Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
November 16, 2010	Filing 8 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 6 Report and Recommendations. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of the Prison Litigation Reform Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B ) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation (ECF No. 6 ) dated October 22, 2010, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of 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 11/16/2010. (smc )
October 22, 2010	Filing 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the 4 Complaint filed by DANIEL WESLEY be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Objections to R&R due by 11/8/2010. Signed by Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on October 22, 2010. (far)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 16, 2010

Filing 8 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 6 Report and Recommendations. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directives of the Prison Litigation Reform Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B ) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation (ECF No. 6 ) dated October 22, 2010, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of 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 11/16/2010. (smc )

October 22, 2010

Filing 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the 4 Complaint filed by DANIEL WESLEY be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Objections to R&R due by 11/8/2010. Signed by Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on October 22, 2010. (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: WESLEY v. FINLEY
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: DANIEL WESLEY
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: BOBBY FINLEY
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?