WARREN v. KING et al

Filing 56

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 45) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED IN THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 52) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 4/27/16. 4/29/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS WARREN, : : : : : : : : : : Plaintiff, v. LENORA KING, et. al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-cv-6249 ORDER AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2016, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 45), Plaintiff’s Motion in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 53), Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 52), and Defendants Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 54), it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as follows: 1. On the issue of whether Mr. Warren can claim compensatory damages for any of his claims, we GRANT summary judgment to the Defendants. 2. On all other issues, Summary Judgment for the Defendants is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The issues on which the Court has denied summary judgment are left for resolution at trial. 1 BY THE COURT: S/J. Curtis Joyner J. CURTIS JOYNER, 2 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?