MIGLIORE v. ACKERMAN et al

Filing 31

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE BY TELEPHONE WILL BE CONDUCTED DUE COURSE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 8/12/2013. 8/13/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD W. MIGLIORE, J.D.
Plaintiff,
v.
ARLENE ACKERMAN, Superintendent;
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
PHILADELPHIA, THE SCHOOL
REFORM COMMISSION; and,
COMMISIONERS ROBERT L. ARCHIE.,
JR., ESQUIRE, Chairman, DENISE
McGREGOR ARMBRISTER, JOSEPH A.
DWORETZKY, ESQUIRE, and JOHNNY
IRIZARRY; LUCY FERIA, Regional
Superintendent; JAMES DOUGLASS,
Assistant Regional Superintendent;
ESTELLE G. MATTHEWS, Chief Talent
Development Officer; ANDREW ROSEN,
ESQUIRE, Human Resources
Representative; and MARY SANDRA
DEAN, Principal.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-4018

ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Document No. 18, filed September 17, 2012), Defendants’ Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 22, filed November 9,
2012), Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 20, filed October 19, 2012),
and Plaintiff’s Answer in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Document
No. 23, filed November 12, 2012), Letter from Defense Counsel dated June 20, 2013 (Document
No. 26, filed June 20, 2013), Joint Report of All Parties in Response to the Court’s Order Dated
July 1, 2013 (Document No. 28, filed July 15, 2013), Letter from Defense Counsel dated July 31,

2013 (Document No. 29, filed July 31, 2013), and Letter from Plaintiff’s Counsel dated August 1,
2013, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated August 12, 2013, IT IS ORDERED as
follows:
1.

With respect to Migliore’s neglect to prevent claim under 42 U.S.C. §1986, which

claim he states he is not pursuing, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
2.

With respect to Migliore’s claim that he was retaliated against because of the Book

and speeches in violation of his First Amendment rights, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment are each DENIED.
3.

With respect to Migliore’s claim that he was retaliated against because of his

grievance and complaint in violation of his First Amendment rights, Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
4.

With respect to Migliore’s claim that he was retaliated against because of his

leadership beliefs, research-based practices, or associations and friendships with teachers in
violation of his First Amendment rights, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
5.

With respect to Milgiore’s due process claim, Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
6.

With respect to Migliore’s claims asserted against the School District of

Philadelphia and the School Reform Commission, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a scheduling conference by telephone will be
conducted due course.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
_______
__
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

3