HINTON v. TENNIS et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFT SIMCOX IS DISMISSED AS A DEFT IN THIS ACTION; DEFTS GARY AND BENNETT ARE DISMISSED AS DEFTS IN THIS ACTION BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF PROPER SERVICE; THE PLFF SHALL FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT CONSISTENT WITH THIS MEMORANDUM WITHIN THIRTY DAYS O THE DATE OF THIS ORDER; ALSO WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER DEFT HAMILTON SHALL FILE A REASON TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED AGAINST HIM FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS COMPLAINT.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 3/12/09. 3/16/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED AND FAXED.(lvj, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA C O R E Y HINTON, P laintiff v. F R A N K L IN J. TENNIS, et al. D efe n d a n ts : : : : : : : C IV IL ACTION No. 08-0295 ORDER A N D NOW, this 12th day of March, 2009, upon consideration of the C o m m o n w ea lth Defendants' motion to dismiss (Document #10), and the plaintiff's re s p o n s e thereto (Document #18), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. 2. D e f en d a n t Simcox is DISMISSED as a defendant in this action; D e f en d a n ts Evans Gary, Jr., and Richard Bennett are DISMISSED as d e f e n d a n ts in this action because of the lack of proper service; 2. T h e plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with this M e m o ra n d u m within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order; 3. A lso within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Defendant Mr. H a m ilto n shall file a reason to show cause why default judgment should not be entered a g a in st him for failure to respond to this complaint. B Y THE COURT: /s/Lawrence F. Stengel LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

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?