CALHOUN v. MURRAY et al
Filing
58
ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE DISMISSAL OF THE DEFENDANT DAUB (DOC. NO. 30) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 2/20/14. 2/20/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (jpd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID CALHOUN
Plaintiff,
v.
KENYA MANN, JOEL GOLDSTEIN
and CYNTHIA DAUB,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 08-458
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
By order of this court dated January 22, 2009 (Docket No. 38), plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (Docket No. 30) was held in abeyance only as to defendant Daub so that his
response to defendant Daub’s motion to dismiss could be considered. That response was filed on
February 23, 2009 but plaintiff had filed a notice of appeal on January 28, 2009 (Docket No. 39).
That appeal was ultimately dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction (Docket No. 51) but a
final order on the motion for reconsideration was never entered. Plaintiff now has counsel, and
at a conference held with counsel for all parties on February 19, 2014, it was agreed that the
motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 30) should be ruled on by the court.
Having reviewed the court opinion of January 22, 2009 (Docket No. 38) setting forth the
basis for denial of the motion for reconsideration as to two of the defendants, and having
reviewed the plaintiff’s response to Daub’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 42), the court finds no
basis to reconsider its memorandum and order of December 18, 2008 (Docket No. 29) dismissing
all three defendants.
For the reasons set forth in the opinion of January 22, 2009 (Docket No. 38) the court
enters the following order:
AND NOW, this 19th day of February, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to
reconsider the dismissal of defendant Daub (Docket No. 30) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
Ronald L. Buckwalter
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.
2
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?