TUTTLE v. WINGARD, et al
| GREGORY TUTTLE and CONNIE TUTTLE |
| TREVOR WINGARD, DANA PHILLIPS, VIRGINIA COOK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, ALLEGHENY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., DAN ONORATO and ALLEGHENY COUNTY |
| 2:2014cv00164 |
| February 6, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Allegheny |
| Lisa Pupo Lenihan |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
73
ORDER. The Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Allegheny County (Doc. 70 ) is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated December 29, 2015 (Doc. 72 ) hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 1/21/16. (rld)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations (Doc. 43 ). The Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Allegheny Correctional Health Services, Inc. and Dana Phillips (Doc. 31 ) is DENIED. The Motion is DENIED as it relates to the Monell claim against Alleghe ny Correctional Health Services, Inc., and DENIED AS MOOT as to all other issues previously raised in Defendants' first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8 ), and subsequently ruled upon by the Court. (Docs. 24 , 28 ). Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 7/7/15. (rld)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendations. The Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Allegheny County, Allegheny Health Department, Dan Onorato, and Trevor Wingard (Doc. 14 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is denied as it relates to the E ighth Amendment claim. It is granted as it relates to: the official and individual capacity claims against Defendants Onorato and Wingard; the claims against the Allegheny Health Department; the Fifth Amendment claims; and the state negligence claim s against Allegheny County and it officials Wingard and Onorato. It is granted without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint as to the municipal liability claim. If Plaintiffs fail to amend the municipal liability claim by January 5, 2015, that claim will be dismissed with prejudice. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Virginia Cook (Doc. 10 ) is GRANTED.The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Allegheny Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dana Phillips, and Bruce Dixon i n his capacity as Chair of the Board of Directors of Allegheny Correctional Health Services, Inc., (Doc. 8 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion is denied as it relates to: the state law negligence claims against ACHS and its official s Phillips and Dixon; the Section 1983 individual capacity claims against Phillips; and the claim for punitive damages. The Motion is granted as it relates to: the Fifth Amendment claims; the Fourteenth Amendment claims; the Section 1983 official ca pacity claims against Phillips and Dixon; the Section 1983 individual capacity claims against Dixon; and any state medical malpractice claims. This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint as it relates to the Monell cla im. If Plaintiffs fails to amend the Monell claim by January 5, 2015, that claim will be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated September 29, 2014, hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 12/17/14. (rld)
|
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.
