Rivers v. Dumont, 3:17-CV-2415. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20190411960
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 25 th DAY OF MARCH, 2019, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 26), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff Objections (Doc. 28-1) are OVERRULED. 1 Plaintiff's sole conclusory argument that he has "clearly articulated under liberal construance [sic]" that he has stated a claim for relief in his co
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 25 th DAY OF MARCH, 2019, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 26), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff Objections (Doc. 28-1) are OVERRULED. 1 Plaintiff's sole conclusory argument that he has "clearly articulated under liberal construance [sic]" that he has stated a claim for relief in his com..
More
ORDER
ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge.
AND NOW, THIS 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2019, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 26), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff Objections (Doc. 28-1) are OVERRULED.1 Plaintiff's sole conclusory argument that he has "clearly articulated under liberal construance [sic]" that he has stated a claim for relief in his complaint offers no rebuttal to the analysis set forth in the R&R.
2. The R&R (Doc. 26) is ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART as follows:
a. The Court ADOPTS the R&R's recommendation that Plaintiff be allowed to file an amended complaint in connection with Plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise and freedom of speech claims (solely for the reasoning set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion) and Plaintiff's Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution claims. The Court also ADOPTS the R&R's recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff's Pennsylvania state constitutional claims for damages.
b. The Court DOES NOT ADOPT the R&R's recommendation that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their official capacities be dismissed with prejudice.
c. The Court ADOPTS IN PART AND REJECTS IN PART the R&R's recommendation with respect to the availability of punitive damages because the pro se Plaintiff is hereby given leave to amend his complaint to permit him to properly state a claim for punitive damages by amending his complaint to bring claims against Defendants in their individual capacities.
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 14) is GRANTED as follows:
a. Plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise, First Amendment freedom of speech, Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment unlawful arrest/malicious prosecution, and Pennsylvania state constitutional claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
b. Plaintiff's claim seeking criminal prosecution of Defendants under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-42 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
4. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his Complaint within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order to set forth proper First Amendment free exercise claims, First Amendment freedom of speech claims, Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment unlawful arrest/malicious prosecution claims, Pennsylvania state constitutional claims for equitable relief, any claim for Monell liability against the City of Wilkes-Barre, and claims for damages against defendant officers Dumont and Rennick in their individual capacities. Failure to amend the Complaint may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.
5. The case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's Objections were not formally docketed on the record but were included as an attachment to Defendants' Appendix of Exhibits in Support of their Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R.
Source: Leagle
