SHAW v. NUTTER et al
ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 10) IS GRANTED AS TO DEFENDANT NUTTER BUT DENIED AS TO DEFENDANTS GIORLA AND FARRELL; DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS II AND III FOR FALURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DOC. NO.10) IS GRANTED AS TO ALL DEFEN DANTS; DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OPF PROSECUTION (DOC. NO. 16) IS DENIED AND PLAINTIFF IS GIVEN LEAVE TO AMEND ONLY COUT II WITHIN THRITY(30) DAYS OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 3/6/17. 3/7/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF AND E-MAILED. (jpd,)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OMAR TYRICK SHAW,
AND NOW, this 6th day of March, 2017, upon consideration of “Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim” (Doc. No. 10) and Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Prosecution” (Doc. No. 16), it is hereby ORDERED that:
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim I for failure to state a claim (Doc. No. 10) is
GRANTED as to Defendant Nutter, but DENIED as to Defendants Giorla and
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claims II and III for failure to state a claim (Doc. No.
10) is GRANTED as to all Defendants;
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) for lack of prosecution is DENIED; and
Plaintiff is given leave to amend only Count II within 30 (thirty) days of this Order.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
Mitchell S. Goldberg, 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?