Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 17-5421. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20200228i43
Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 26, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2020
Summary: ORDER WENDY BEETLESTONE , District Judge . AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2020, upon consideration of Defendant Raymond Evers' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 70) and Defendant's Reply in Support (ECF No. 85); Defendant Anthony Boyle's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 72) and Reply in Support (ECF No. 83); Defendant City of Philadelphia's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 73) and Reply in Support (ECF No. 87); and Plaintiffs' Omnibus Response in Opposition (ECF No. 76) and
Summary: ORDER WENDY BEETLESTONE , District Judge . AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2020, upon consideration of Defendant Raymond Evers' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 70) and Defendant's Reply in Support (ECF No. 85); Defendant Anthony Boyle's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 72) and Reply in Support (ECF No. 83); Defendant City of Philadelphia's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 73) and Reply in Support (ECF No. 87); and Plaintiffs' Omnibus Response in Opposition (ECF No. 76) and O..
More
ORDER
WENDY BEETLESTONE, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2020, upon consideration of Defendant Raymond Evers' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 70) and Defendant's Reply in Support (ECF No. 85); Defendant Anthony Boyle's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 72) and Reply in Support (ECF No. 83); Defendant City of Philadelphia's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 73) and Reply in Support (ECF No. 87); and Plaintiffs' Omnibus Response in Opposition (ECF No. 76) and Omnibus Sur-Reply in Opposition (ECF No. 92), Defendants' motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
Defendant Raymond Evers' Motion to Dismiss:
1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim:
a. GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Debra Frazier and Shamal Bryant. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
b. DENIED as to Plaintiff Laverne Vann.
2. Pennsylvania Whistleblower Claim:
a. GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Debra Frazier and Shamal Bryant. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
b. DENIED as it pertains to Plaintiff Laverne Vann.
Defendant Anthony Boyle's Motion to Dismiss:
1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim:
a. GRANTED as to Plaintiff Bryant. This claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
b. DENIED as to Plaintiffs Frazier and Vann.
2. Pennsylvania Whistleblower Claim:
a. GRANTED as to Plaintiff Bryant. This claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
b. DENIED as to Plaintiffs Frazier and Vann.
Defendant City of Philadelphia's Motion to Dismiss:
1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim is GRANTED as it pertains to all Plaintiffs. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. Pennsylvania Whistleblower Claim:
a. GRANTED as it pertains to Plaintiff Bryant. This claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
b. DENIED as it pertains to Plaintiffs Frazier and Vann.
Source: Leagle
