Filed: Apr. 17, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-17-2009 Thomas Telfair v. Karen Tandy Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 08-4663 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Thomas Telfair v. Karen Tandy" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1434. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1434 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-17-2009 Thomas Telfair v. Karen Tandy Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 08-4663 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Thomas Telfair v. Karen Tandy" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1434. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1434 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the ..
More
Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-17-2009 Thomas Telfair v. Karen Tandy Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 08-4663 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Thomas Telfair v. Karen Tandy" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1434. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1434 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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ Nos. 07-3859, 08-4663, 09-1162 _____________ DANA M. PORTER v. DEPT. OF THE TREASURY *MICHAEL BUESGENS Appellant in No. 07-3859 *(Pursuant to Rule 12(a), F.R.A.P.) On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-01541) District Judge: Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman TOMMIE H. TELFAIR, Appellant in No. 08-4663 v. KAREN P. TANDY, Administrator-Drug Enforcement Administration; GERARD P. MCALEER, Director/Senior Officer-DEA: Newark; 1-50 UNKNOWN DEA AGENTS; 1-50 UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENTS; RAY MCCARTHY, Chief of Police, Newark; MURAD MUHAMMED, Roberty-Homicide, OIC Newark Police; 1-50 UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS; PAUL W. BERGRIN, Private Attorney-District of New Jersey; CHRISTOPHER CHRISTY, AUSA-District of New Jersey On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 08-cv-0731) District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini JEWEL POWELL; WINSTON POWELL a/k/a TOMMY POWELL, et. al. v. VIOLET O. MAHABIR; LORING W. SEWER; MARILYN E. WOODLEY; IRVIN A. SEWER; EARL A. SEWER; WARREN A. SEWER; LUCINDA C. ANTHONY; JUDITH O. CALLWOOD; LORREL A. SEWER, Appellants in No. 09-1162 ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-00083) District Judge: Honorable Raymond J. Finch Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27 and I.O.P. 10 Before: McKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges ORDER AMENDING OPINION It appearing that at times the text of the opinion and order filed on April 16, 2009, identified the appellant in appeal No. 07-3859 as Dana M. Porter rather than Michael Buesgens, it is hereby O R D E R E D that the opinion and order shall be amended. The following changes shall be made to the text of the opinion: Page 8, paragraph 2, first sentence is amended as follows: Buesgens, who proceeds pro se, and the Mahabir appellants, who are represented by counsel, have moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). Page 8, paragraph 2, last sentence is amended as follows: Accordingly, while we will grant Mahabir’s and Buesgens’s motions to withdraw their appeals ... Page 9, paragraph 2, first sentence is amended as follows: Buesgens’s and the Mahabir appellants’ motions to withdraw their appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) are granted. For the Court, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk Dated: April 17, 2009