MCCAIN v. WETZEL et al

Filing 40

ORDER THAT: DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AS TO ALL OF PLFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFTS JOHN E. WETZEL, WENDY SHAYLOR, LIEUTENANT ALLISON AND MICHAEL WENEROWICZ. PLFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE DENIED. PLFF'S MO TION FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT; PLFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR DEPOSITION AND WRIT OF DEFTS' ATTORNEY TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PLFF TO BE TRANSFERRED TO SCI-GRATERFORD; PLFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR DEPOSITION OF ALL DEFTS REGARD ING NEWLY DISCOVERED INFORMATION FROM DEFT'S ATTORNEY AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; PLFF'S MOTION FOR COURT APPOINTED EXPERT TO EVALUATE PLFF AT FEDERAL COURTHOUSE; PLFF'S MOTION FOR A HEARING TO CORRRECT TRANSCRIPTS OF VIDEO CONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE MISSING; AND PLFF'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE DEPOSITION OR REQUIREMENT FOR AN EMERGENCY HEARING ARE DENIED AS MOOT. THE CASE SHALL BE MARKED AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 7/10/12. 7/11/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(fb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMIR HAKIM MCCAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-7241

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2012, it is hereby
ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31) is
GRANTED as to all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
John E. Wetzel, Wendy Shaylor, Lieutenant Allison and
Michael Wenerowicz.

2. Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 33, 37)
are DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Telephone Conference Transcript
(ECF No. 25); Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Deposition and
Writ for Defendants’ Attorney to Make Arrangements for
Plaintiff to be Transferred to SCI-Graterford (ECF No. 27);

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order for Deposition of All
Defendants Regarding Newly Discovered Information from
Defendant’s Attorney and Appointment of Counsel (ECF No.
28); Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Appointed Expert to
Evaluate Plaintiff at Federal Courthouse (ECF No. 29);
Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Regarding Newly Discovered
Information (ECF No. 30); Plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing
to Correct Transcripts of Video Conference Deposition of
Questions that are Missing (ECF No. 32); and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Suppress the Deposition or Requirement for an
Emergency Hearing (ECF No. 36) are DENIED as MOOT.
4. The case shall be marked as closed.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.