ELDRIDGE v. DIEHL et al
Filing
29
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 9/23/11. 9/23/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM ANTHONY ELDRIDGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER MATTHEW DIEHL, CITY OF
ALLENTOWN, SGT. JOHN HILL, OFFICER
PATRICK BULL, and JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-3537
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiff William
Anthony Eldridge’s Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 24) and Defendants
Officer Matthew Diehl, Sergeant John Hill, Officer Patrick Bull, and Officer April Kummerer’s
Response in Opposition (Docket No. 27), it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.
]]>
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?
