MACHON v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE et al

Filing 44

ORDER of MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION that DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 12) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 10) IS GRANTED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:.... SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 2/23/2012. 2/23/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF AND U.S. MAIL.(mo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTOPHER MACHON,
Plaintiff
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WELFARE, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-4151

ORDER
AND NOW, this _23rd__ day of February 2012, it is ORDERED that Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) is Granted in
part, and Denied in part, as follows:
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

All claims against Defendants DPW and Alexander are dismissed.
All claims against Defendant Kent, in his official capacity, are dismissed.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I (1st amendment retaliation) is denied as to
Defendants Kent, Szczurowski, Cannon, Puleo, Chopak, Virden, and Miller.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II (procedural due process - right to continued
employment) against Defendant Kent is denied. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II
(substantive due process) is granted.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count III (14th Amendment equal protection) is granted.
Judgement is reserved as to Defendants’ qualified immunity defense to Plaintiff’s Count
IV (4th Amendment invasion of privacy) claim.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count V (Pennsylvania tort claim for invasion of privacy)
is denied without prejudice as to Defendants Cannon, Puleo, Chopyak, Virden, and
Miller. The motion is granted as to Defendants Alexander, Kent, and Szczurowski.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count VI (conspiracy) is granted.
s/Anita B. Brody
__________________________
ANITA B. BRODY, J.

Copies VIA ECF on _________ to:

Copies MAILED on _______ to: