Savage et al v. Pocomoke City Maryland et al
ORDER Granting 88 to Intervene by USA; Denying without prejudice 92 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Denying without prejudice 93 Motion to Strike ; Denying without prejudice 97 Motion to Dismiss; Denying without prejudice 98 Motion to Dismiss; Denying without prejudice 100 Motion to Strike ; Denying without prejudice 103 Motion to Strike; Denying without prejudice 104 Motion to Dismiss; denying 105 Motion to Dismiss; Denying without prejudice 124 M otion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Denying without prejudice 144 Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying without prejudice 152 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 3/17/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Tentative Scheduling Order, # 2 Letter re: Call-in Hour Program)(bas, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
(410) 962-2698 FAX
1. FREDERICK MOTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MEMO TO COUNSEL RE: Franklin Savage, et al. v. Pocomoke City,r.. t al.
Civil No. JFM-16-201
:3, u; ""1'
Ihave reviewed the memoranda submitted in connection with the motio\n to @;~~e~
filed by the United States of America (document 88), the motion to dismiss fildfiby ~~gi~.
Mason et al (document 92), the motion to strike exhibit A to the second amende1compiaintJiled~"~
by Russell Blake et al (document 93), the motion to dismiss filed by the County=€ommissi6tlers ~3
of Worcester County (document 97), the motion to dismiss filed by Pocomoke City (document
98), the motion to strike amended complaint filed by Russell Blake et al (document 100), the
motion to strike the amended complaint filed by Patricia Donaldson (document 103), the motion
to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by Patricia Donaldson et al (document 104), the
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by the State of Maryland (document 105), the
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Reggie Mason and the State of Maryland
(document 124), the motion for summary judgment filed by Ernest Crofoot (document 144), and
the motion for leave to file surreply filed by the United States (document 152).
The motion to intervene filed by the United States is granted. All of the other motions
are denied without prejudice to the issues being re-raised by a motion for summary judgment at
the conclusion of discovery.
A conference call will be held on April 3, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. to discuss the appropriate
schedule in this case. Iask counsel for plaintiff to initiate the call.
Enclosed is a tentative scheduling order with approximate dates for your information.
Please consult with one another before the call and be prepared to discuss whether you would
like to participate in a settlement conference either before or after the completion of discovery,
any changes to the dates in the form scheduling order, and whether there is unanimous consent to
proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge for all proceedings.
Also enclosed is a letter regarding a call-in hour program for the resolution of discovery
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Very truly yours,
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?