PENDERGRASS v. PENDERGRASS, II et al

Filing 112

MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NOS. 86 , 87 , 88 , 106 ) ARE GRANTED AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 89 ) IS DENIED. THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THE CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 2/10/21. 2/11/21 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE; E-MAILED.(amas, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOAN PENDERGRASS
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-478

THEODORE PENDERGRASS, II, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of February 2021, upon consideration of Defendants Robert
Bacine and Jack Rounick’s Joint Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Timothy Holman’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff Joan Pendergrass’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, and the responses and replies thereto, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying
memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment [Doc. Nos. 86, 87, 88, 106] are GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 89] is DENIED. The Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and the
Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.