COHEN v. PRATT et al
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE THERETO, AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THIS COURT'S MEMORANDUM, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE MOTION 34 , IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 10/25/11. 10/26/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PRIOR PRATT, et al.,
AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s response thereto, and for the reasons stated in this
Court’s Memorandum dated October 25, 2011, it is hereby ORDERED that:
The motion (Document No. 34) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as
The motion is DENIED as to Officer Pratt.
The motion is GRANTED as to Officer Waters and Officer Sanford and
the claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED.
Unless the parties resolve their dispute, the trial will consist of Cohen’s federal
and state law malicious prosecution claims against Officer Pratt.
BY THE COURT:
Berle M. Schiller, 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?