HEIT v. PENN DENTAL MEDICINE et al

Filing 111

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 85 ) IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO RULE 56(d)(2) (DOC. 99 ) IS DENIED. ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS ARE DENIED AS MOOT. THE COMPLAINT IS THEREFORE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 11/29/2017. 11/29/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARSHA SILVER HEIT v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-2929 PENN DENTAL MEDICINE, TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, DANA T. GRAVES, D.D.S., DENIS F. KINANE, B.D.S. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND NOW, this 29th day of November 2017, after review of the Motion for Summary Judgment submitted by Defendants Penn Dental Medicine, Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, Dana T. Graves, and Denis F. Kinane, (ECF 85), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for relief pursuant to Rule 56(d)(2) (ECF 99) is DENIED. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. The Complaint is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice. BY THE COURT: /s/ Michael M. Baylson _______________________________ MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, U.S.D.J. O:\CIVIL 16\16-2929 Heit v Penn Dental\16cv2929 Order Granting Summary Judgment.doc

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?