D'ANTONIO v. BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE et al

Filing 81

ORDER granting 22 Motion to Dismiss, David Bole (Bole), the Borough ofAllendale (the Borough), Mary McDonnell (McDonnell), David Pfund (Pfund), and Stiles Thomas (Thomas, together, the Borough Defendants) (ECF No. 33); Mark S. Carter (Carter) (ECF No. 34); Richard Epstein (Epstein) (ECF No. 36); John Albohm (Albobm) (ECF No. 39); and the Bergen County Sheriffs Department (Sheriffs Department) (ECF No. 47); ; denying 63 Motion for Default Judgment and Plaintiffs appeal (ECF No. 74) of Magi strate Judge Clarks November 18, 2016, Order (ECF No. 73); that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; granting Pltf. (30) days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint to address the pleading deficiencies described herein, and, if the amended complaint asserts any claims against Defendants Capazzi, Monahan, and PRC, Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of this Opinion to effect proper service on these Defendants. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 2/21/17. (DD, )

Case 2:16-cv-00816-CCC-JBC Document 81 Filed 02/21/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1505

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MICHAEL A. D’ANTONIO,

Civil Action No.: 1 6-cv-8 16

Plaintiff,

ORDER
V.

BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE, etaL,

Defendants.
CECCHI, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on several motions to dismiss made by the following
Defendants: Passaic River Coalition (“PRC”) (ECF No. 22); David Bole (“Bole”), the Borough of
Allendale (“the Borough”), Mary McDonnell (“McDonnell”), David Pfund (“Pfund”), and Stiles
Thomas (“Thomas,” together, the “Borough Defendants”) (ECF No. 33); Mark S. Carter (“Carter”)
(ECF No. 34); Richard Epstein (“Epstein”) (ECF No. 36); John Albohm (“Albobm”) (ECF No.
39); and the Bergen County Sheriffs Department (“Sheriffs Department”) (ECF No. 47); as well
as p

Plaintiff Michael A. D ‘Antonio’s (“Plaintiff’) motion for default judgment against

Defendants Louis Capazzi (“Capazzi”) and Thomas P. Monahan, Esq. (“Monahan”) (ECF No. 63),
and Plaintiffs appeal (ECF No. 74) of Magistrate Judge Clark’s November 18, 2016, Order (ECF
No. 73). For the reasons stated in the corresponding Opinion,
IT IS, on this

day of February, 2017,

ORDERED that Defendants’ motions are GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion and appeal are DENIED; it is further
ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further
1

Case 2:16-cv-00816-CCC-JBC Document 81 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1506

ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended
complaint to address the pleading deficiencies described herein, and, if the amended complaint
asserts any claims against Defendants Capazzi, Monahan, and PRC, Plaintiff is granted 60 days
from the date of this Opinion to effect proper service on these Defendants.
SO ORDERED.

CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.

2