Filed: Apr. 06, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-6-2006 Dennison v. PA Dept Corr Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-3921 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Dennison v. PA Dept Corr" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1291. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1291 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinio
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-6-2006 Dennison v. PA Dept Corr Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-3921 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Dennison v. PA Dept Corr" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1291. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1291 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinion..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-6-2006
Dennison v. PA Dept Corr
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3921
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Dennison v. PA Dept Corr" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1291.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1291
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case No: 05-3921
KERRY DENNISON,
Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SCI-Mahoney;
MICHAEL R. YOURON; MARTIN L. DRAGOVICH;
THOMAS P. KOWALSKY; JAMES UNELL; ED KLEM
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
District Court No.: 01-CV-00056
District Judge: The Honorable James M. Munley
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 30, 2006
Before: SMITH, and COWEN, Circuit Judges,
and THOMPSON, District Judge *
(Filed: April 6, 2006)
OPINION
Kerry Dennison, a former employee of the Pennsylvania Department of
*
The Honorable Anne E. Thompson, Senior District Judge for the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
Corrections, appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania denying his motion for a new trial of his claims of retaliation in
violation of Title VII, the Free Speech and Petition clauses of the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and the Pennsylvania
Whistle Blowers Act.1 The motion for a new trial alleged that the District Court erred by
requiring his counsel to disclose an exhibit to the defense prior to Dennison’s closing
argument, and by limiting Dennison’s presentation of evidence in support of his claims.
We review these evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Sokolow,
91 F.3d 396, 402 (3d Cir. 1996). For the reasons explained by the District Judge in his
thorough memorandum, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
1
The District Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have
appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2