Chruby v. Bearjar, 3:17-1631. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180920f54
Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER MALACHY E. MANNION , District Judge . For the reasons set forth in the memorandum issued this same day, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: (1) Judge Saporito's report (Doc. 43) is ADOPTED . (2) DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Doc. 19) , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ; (3) DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) with respect to Count I of plaintiff's complaint, is GRANTED in part and DISMISSED with prejudice, as it applies to plaintiff's retaliation claim
Summary: ORDER MALACHY E. MANNION , District Judge . For the reasons set forth in the memorandum issued this same day, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: (1) Judge Saporito's report (Doc. 43) is ADOPTED . (2) DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Doc. 19) , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ; (3) DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) with respect to Count I of plaintiff's complaint, is GRANTED in part and DISMISSED with prejudice, as it applies to plaintiff's retaliation claim a..
More
ORDER
MALACHY E. MANNION, District Judge.
For the reasons set forth in the memorandum issued this same day, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Judge Saporito's report (Doc. 43) is ADOPTED.
(2) DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Doc. 19), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
(3) DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) with respect to Count I of plaintiff's complaint, is GRANTED in part and DISMISSED with prejudice, as it applies to plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendant Bearjar with respect to plaintiff's prison transfer and DENIED in part, as it applies to plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendant Bearjar with respect to placement of a sick prisoner in plaintiff's cell;
(3) DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) with respect to Count II of plaintiff's complaint, is GRANTED in part and DISMISSED with prejudice, as it applies to defendants Kowalewski, Schrock, Luter, Wood, and Feather and plaintiff's cell occupancy status prior to August 1, 2016 and DENIED in part, as it applies to defendants Kowalewski, Schrock, Luter, Wood, and Feather and plaintiff's cell occupancy status on or after August 1, 2016;
(4) DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) with respect to all other claims against DOC Defendants is DENIED;
(5) Medical Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 21), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
(6) Medical Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 21), with respect to Count III of plaintiff's complaint is GRANTED and DISMISSED with prejudice;
(7) Medical Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 21), with respect to all other claims against Medical Defendants is DENIED;
(8) This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. for further proceedings.
Source: Leagle
