Filed: Feb. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE , Magistrate Judge . AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of "Defendants Richard Jones and Francis Priscopo's Motion for Summary Judgment", (Doc. No. 39), the "Statement of Material Facts in Support of Defendants Richard Jones' and Francis Priscopo's Motion for Summary Judgment", (Doc. No. 39-1), Plaintiff's untitled brief opposing Defendants' motion, (Doc. No. 50-1), and "Plaintiff's Counter-Statement of Facts in Opposition to the Defenda
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE , Magistrate Judge . AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of "Defendants Richard Jones and Francis Priscopo's Motion for Summary Judgment", (Doc. No. 39), the "Statement of Material Facts in Support of Defendants Richard Jones' and Francis Priscopo's Motion for Summary Judgment", (Doc. No. 39-1), Plaintiff's untitled brief opposing Defendants' motion, (Doc. No. 50-1), and "Plaintiff's Counter-Statement of Facts in Opposition to the Defendan..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE, Magistrate Judge.
AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of "Defendants Richard Jones and Francis Priscopo's Motion for Summary Judgment", (Doc. No. 39), the "Statement of Material Facts in Support of Defendants Richard Jones' and Francis Priscopo's Motion for Summary Judgment", (Doc. No. 39-1), Plaintiff's untitled brief opposing Defendants' motion, (Doc. No. 50-1), and "Plaintiff's Counter-Statement of Facts in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. No. 50), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons set out in the Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order, that Defendants' motion to dismiss the John Doe Defendants is GRANTED; Defendants' request for oral argument is DENIED; and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is:
1. GRANTED as to Richard Jones and Francis Priscopo regarding Plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Compl., Doc. No. 33, Count I);
2. GRANTED as to Francis Priscopo regarding Plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution under Pennsylvania state law, (Compl., Doc. No. 33, Count I);
3. DENIED as to Richard Jones regarding Plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution under Pennsylvania state law, (Compl., Doc. No. 33, Count I);
4. GRANTED as to Richard Jones and Francis Priscopo regarding Plaintiff's claim of vindictive prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Compl., Doc. No. 33, Count II); and
5. GRANTED as to Richard Jones and Francis Priscopo regarding Plaintiff's claim of vindictive prosecution under Pennsylvania state law, (Compl., Doc. No. 33, Count II).
Accordingly, trial will commence on the Pennsylvania state law malicious prosecution claim as to Defendant Richard Jones only. Counsel is referred to the Court's Amended Scheduling Order of December 3, 2014, (Doc. No. 47), and the pretrial requirements set out within that Order.
