BOGGS v. SIVERA et al

Filing 26

ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:1. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CURATIVE AMENDMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTSMOTION TO DISMISS (DOCKET NO. 20) IS GRANTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUPPLEMENT PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED THERETO;2. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOCKET NO. 10) IS DENIED;3. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT ADD AND CORRECT PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOCKET NO. 21) IS GRANTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO A MEND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS; 4. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO ADD OR AMEND (DOCKET NO. 23) IS GRANTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO AMEND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS; 5. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCKET NO. 24) IS DENIED; 6. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOCKET NO. 19) IS GRANTED; 7. PLAINTIFFS DUE PROCESS CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 8. PLAINTIFFS RETALIATION CLAIM IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 9. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED; AND 10. THE CLERK OF COURTS SHALL CLOSE THIS MATTER.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 3/28/2016. 3/28/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF AND E-MAILED.(lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY K. BOGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-1336

CAPTAIN TERRA, SUPERINTENDENT
WENEROWICZ, MARY CANINO, AARON
SIVERA, DEPUTY GEORGE ONDREJKA,
CAPTAIN SPAGNOLETTI, ROBIN LEWIS,
DEPUTY LANE and MICHAEL BELL,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2016, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 19), and all exhibits
thereto, as well as Plaintiff’s “Motion for Curative Amendment in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Docket No. 20), “Motion to Supplement Add and Correct
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint” (Docket No. 21), “Plaintiff’s Supplement to Amended
Complaint” (Docket No. 22), and “Motion for Permission to Add or Amend” (Docket No.
23), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Curative Amendment in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss” (Docket No. 20) is GRANTED only to the extent it seeks to respond
to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and supplement Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with
the exhibits attached thereto;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 10) is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Add and Correct Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint (Docket No. 21) is GRANTED only to the extent it seeks to amend the
amended complaint to include additional information and exhibits;
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Add or Amend (Docket No. 23) is
GRANTED only to the extent it seeks to amend the amended complaint to include
additional information and exhibits;
5. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 24) is DENIED;
6. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 19) is GRANTED;
7. Plaintiff’s due process claims are DISMISSED with prejudice;
8. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice;
9. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED; and
10. The Clerk of Courts shall close this matter.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J.

2