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)

Download PDF
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?