MCKAY v. GIBBONS et al

Filing 53

ORDER THAT PLFF'S MOTION FOR RULE 4 (DOC. NO. 20) IS DENIED; PLFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 29) IS DENIED; CHIEF KRIMMEL'S MOTION TO DIMISS (DOC. NO. 27) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS SET OUT IN THE ACCOMPANYIN G MEMORANDUM; PLFF'S MOTION: OPPOSITION (DOC. NO. 31), MOTION TO OBJECT TO DEFTS. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF A JURY TRIAL (DOC. NO. 46), AND MOTION TO OBJECT TO DEFTS. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF A JURY TRIAL (49), WHICH ARE ALL CONSTRUED AS RESPONSE S IN OPPOSITION TO CHIEF KRIMMEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 27)-ARE DEEMED MOOT. PLFF. MOTION TO WITHDRAW FROM SUSPENSE, & TO PROCEED PRO SE (DOC. NO. 50) IS GRANTED; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL REMOVE THIS CASE FROM SUSPENSE STATUS; THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL REMOVE THIS CASE FROM THE PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS PANEL; AND THE DEFTS. SHALL RESPOND TO PLFF'S COMPLAINT BY 3/29/19.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 3/7/19. 3/12/19 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF. AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL, 1 COPY TO PRO SE LAW CLERK AND 1 COPY TO PRO SE WRIT CLERK.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK McKAY
Plaintiff,
v.
TED KRIMMEL et al.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 18-2112

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2019, upon consideration of the Court’s June 4, 2018
Order placing this case in suspense (Doc. No. 7), Plaintiff Mark McKay’s “Motion for Rule 4”
(Doc. No. 20), the defendants’ responses (Doc. Nos. 23, 24, and 28), Defendant Ted Krimmel’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27), Mr. McKay’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29),
the defendants’ responses in opposition (Doc. Nos. 30 and 32), Mr. McKay’s “Motion:
Opposition” (Doc. No. 31), Mr. McKay’s Response in Opposition to Chief Krimmel’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. No. 33), Mr. McKay’s “Motion to Object to Defendants Request for Dismissal of
a Jury Trial” (Doc. No. 46), Mr. McKay’s “Motion to Object to Defendants Request for Dismissal
of a Jury Trial” (Doc. No. 49), and Mr. McKay’s “Motion to Withdraw from Suspense, & to
Proceed Pro Se” (Doc. No 50), it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Mr. McKay’s “Motion for Rule 4” (Doc. No. 20) is DENIED;
2. Mr. McKay’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED;
3. Chief Krimmel’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as set out in the accompanying Memorandum;

1

4. Mr. McKay’s “Motion: Opposition” (Doc. No. 31), “Motion to Object to Defendants
Request for Dismissal of a Jury Trial” (Doc. No. 46), and “Motion to Object to
Defendants Request for Dismissal of a Jury Trial” (Doc. No. 49)—which are all
construed as responses in opposition to Chief Krimmel’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No.
27)—are DEEMED MOOT;
5. Mr. McKay’s “Motion to Withdraw from Suspense, & to Proceed Pro Se” (Doc. No
50) is GRANTED;
6. The Clerk of the Court shall REMOVE this case from SUSPENSE STATUS;
7. The Clerk of the Court shall REMOVE this case from the Prisoner Civil Rights Panel;
and
8. The defendants shall respond to Mr. McKay’s complaint by March 29, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

S/Gene E.K. Pratter
GENE E.K. PRATTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2