Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

GANNAWAY v. PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC., 12-1156. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20151223i01 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER EDUARDO C. ROBRENO , District Judge . AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2015, upon consideration of the various pending motions in this case and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The PrimeCare Medical Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 92 & 93) is GRANTED and all claims against moving defendants are DISMISSED; 2. Defendants ADAPPT, Inc., and William Tillman's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 9
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2015, upon consideration of the various pending motions in this case and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The PrimeCare Medical Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 92 & 93) is GRANTED and all claims against moving defendants are DISMISSED;

2. Defendants ADAPPT, Inc., and William Tillman's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 97 & 98) is GRANTED and all claims against moving defendants are DISMISSED;

3. Defendant Berks County Public Defender's Office's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 99) is GRANTED and all claims against moving defendant are DISMISSED;

4. Defendant Osmer Deming's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 102)is GRANTED and all claims against moving defendant are DISMISSED;

5. The Commonwealth Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 113 & 114) is GRANTED and all claims against moving defendants are DISMISSED;

6. Plaintiff's various requests for counsel throughout this case are DENIED;

7. To the extent that Plaintiff's pending filings1 might be construed as seeking leave to take discovery, such relief is DENIED;

8. To the extent that Plaintiff's pending filings might be construed as seeking additional time to respond to the defendants' various motions for summary judgment, such relief is DENIED;

9. To the extent Plaintiff's pending filings might be construed as motions for summary judgment or for default judgment against any defendant, summary judgment and default judgment is DENIED;

10. Plaintiff's claims as to all remaining defendants2 are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1); and

11. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case as CLOSED.3

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff's recent filings include ECF Nos. 129, 130, 131, 132, 137, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, and 150.
2. The remaining defendants who are dismissed are as follows: (1) Jeffrey Ditty, (2) "Lt. Fox," (3) Emil Michael Kazor, (4) Gail Kelly, (5) Teresa Law, (6) Lizhong, (7) "Marsh (Deputy Warden)," (8) John A. Palakovich, (9) April Palumbo Rasch, (10) Mark Silidker, MD (11) Richard Southers, (12) "c/o Weaver," (13) Doris Weaver, (14) Peter Binnion, MD (15) Dr. Fisher, (16) Dr. Symons, (17) Goubran Theodore Vourstand, (18) Ted W. Williams, (19) Nicholas Stroumbakis, MD (20) William Bispels, (21) "(PHS Correctional Healthcare) Most of State Prison," (22) Bernard, (23) Sgt. Vargas, (24) Deputy Horton, (25) "Deputy," (26) "C/O Moore," (27) "Kitchen Worker Luss," and (28) E. Mosser. In addition, two Jane Does and a John Doe have not been identified and are dismissed.
3. All claims against all defendants have been adjudicated or dismissed.
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