MCKINNEY v. GIORLA et al

Filing 28

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC'S MOTION TO AMEND ITS MOTION TO DISMISS TO INCLUDE ARAMARK EMPLOYEE DEFENDANT LORAELA PITTMAN AS A MOVANT (DOCUMENT 22) IS GRANTED; PLAINTIFF TRACEY L. MCKINNEY'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTE NSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO ARAMARK' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOCUMENT 17) IS DENIED AS MOOT; ARAMARK AND PITTMAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOCUMENT 10) IS GRANTED. MCKINNEY'S CLAIMS AGAINST ARAMARK AND PITTMAN ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; MCKI NNEY'S CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT LIEUTENANT MURRAY IS DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(E)(2)(B)(II) AND 1915A; MCKINNEY'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT LOUIS GIORLA ARE DISMISSED WITHOUTPREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C . §§ 1915(E)(2)(B)(II) AND 1915A. IF MCKINNEY WISHES TO FILE ANAMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT BY GIORLA IN THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF HISCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, HE SHALL DO SO BY MAY 30, 2012; AND MCKINNEY'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, DR. SAGREIYA SIDDHARTH, AND WILLIAM LAWTON ARE NOT DISMISSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 4/30/12. 5/1/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PROSE, MAILED TO UNREP, E-MAILED. (er, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TRACEY L. MCKINNEY
v.
LOUIS GIORLA, et al.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 11-4188

ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2012, it is ORDERED:
•

Defendant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC’s Motion to Amend its Motion to

Dismiss to Include Aramark Employee Defendant Loraela Pittman as a Movant (Document 22) is
GRANTED;
•

Plaintiff Tracey L. McKinney’s request for an extension of time to respond to

Aramark’s motion to dismiss (Document 17) is DENIED as moot1;
•

Aramark and Pittman’s Motion to Dismiss (Document 10) is GRANTED.

McKinney’s claims against Aramark and Pittman are DISMISSED with prejudice;
•

McKinney’s claim against Defendant Lieutenant Murray is DISMISSED with

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A;
•

McKinney’s claims against Defendant Louis Giorla are DISMISSED without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A. If McKinney wishes to file an
amended complaint alleging personal involvement by Giorla in the alleged violations of his
constitutional rights, he shall do so by May 30, 2012; and
•

1

McKinney’s claims against Defendants Prison Health Services, Dr. Sagreiya

As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, although McKinney sought an extension of time
until February 5, 2012, to respond to Aramark’s motion, he did not thereafter file a response within
the extension period requested.

Siddharth, and William Lawton are not dismissed.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
Juan R. Sánchez, J.

2