APONTE v. BOROUGH OF POTTSTOWN et al
ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS (DOC NOS. 15 AND 21) ARE GRANTED AND PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THE CLERK OF THE COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 8/25/17. 8/25/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(mbh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHANICQUA S. APONTE,
BOROUGH OF POTTSTOWN; MARK
FLANDERS; MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE;
PENNSYLVANIA; and RICHARD
AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2017, upon consideration of Defendants the
Borough of Pottstown and Mark Flanders’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15); Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 25); the Borough and Flanders’s Reply in Support
thereof (ECF No. 26); Defendants Richard Bradbury,1 the Montgomery County District
Attorney’s Office, and Montgomery County’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21); and Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 25), and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s
Memorandum Opinion of August 25, 2017 (ECF No. 27), IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’
motions (ECF Nos. 15 and 21) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Wendy Beetlestone, J.
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.
Defendant Richard Bradbury was incorrected named as “Richard Burberry” in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
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?