Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

JACKSON v. WOLF, 10-247. (2012)

Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20120316d65 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2012
Summary: ORDER ECF Nos. 32 & 48. KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge. Plaintiffs Complaint was received by the Clerk of Courts on September 28,2010 and was referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. The Magistrate Judge's Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 85) filed on January 23, 2012, recommended that the Motio
More

ORDER

ECF Nos. 32 & 48.

KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Complaint was received by the Clerk of Courts on September 28,2010 and was referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges.

The Magistrate Judge's Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 85) filed on January 23, 2012, recommended that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) filed by Defendants Altoona Regional Hospital, Doctor John Doe #6, Doctor John Doe #7, Doctor Jane Doe #4 be granted, and that any state law claim for medical malpractice against these Defendants be dismissed without prejudice. It was further recommended that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Natalie Ross (ECF No. 48) be granted in part and denied without prejudice in part. It was recommended that Defendant Ross' Motion to Dismiss be denied without prejudice as it related to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim and First Amendment retaliation claim. It was further recommended that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend his Complaint as to these claims against Defendant Ross only. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Eighth and First Amendment Retaliation claims be dismissed with prejudice if Plaintiff fails to file a curative amendment within the time allowed by this Court. Finally, it was recommended that Defendant Ross' Motion to Dismiss as to all other claims be granted.

Service was made on all counsel of record and pro se Plaintiff Joseph Ricky Jackson. The parties were informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), and Local Rule of Court 72.D.2., the parties had fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed.

After review of the pleadings and the documents in the case, together with the Amended Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered:

AND NOW, this 15th of March, 2012,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) filed by Defendants Altoona Regional Hospital, Doctor John Doe #6, Doctor John Doe #7, Doctor Jane Doe #4 is GRANTED, and any state law claim for medical malpractice against these Defendants is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE tore-file in state court if Plaintiff so desires.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Natalie Ross (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. Defendant Ross' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as it relates to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim and First Amendment retaliation claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to filed an Amended Complaint against Defendant Ross only, relating to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim and First Amendment retaliation claims only. If Plaintiff fails to file a curative amendment within 30 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiffs Eighth and First Amendment Retaliation claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ross' Motion to Dismiss as to all other claims is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 85) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated January 23, 2012, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer