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, )

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