CUTLER v. SCHNITZER et al

Filing 43

ORDER OF 10/4/2018 THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL PENDING MOTIONS IN THIS MATTER, AS WELL AS ALL RESPONSES AND REPLIES, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (DOCKET NO. 4) IS DENIED; DEF ENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOCKET NOS. 9,14,16,20,21,23,28 AND 30 ARE GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE (DOCKET NOS. 13,17,24,25,29,33 AND 38) ARE DENIED; PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMBINE CASES (DOCKET NO. 31) IS DENIED; PLAINTIFF� 39;S MOTION TO CORRECT RECORD FOR CLERICAL ERRORS AND MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT (DOCKET NO. 39) IS DENIED AS MOOT; PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE AS CLOSED. (DT) SIGNED BY JUDGE: JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL. 10/5/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF. (DT) Modified on 10/5/2018 (DT).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY CUTLER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-5025 ALAN SCHNITZER, et al, Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 4th day of October, 2018, upon consideration of all pending motions in this matter, as well as all responses and replies, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against All Defendants (Docket No. 4) is DENIED; 2. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 9, 14, 16, 20, 21, 23, 28 and 30) are GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike (Docket Nos. 13, 17, 24, 25, 29, 33 and 38) are DENIED; 4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Combine Cases (Docket No. 31) is DENIED; 5. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Correct Record for Clerical Errors and Motion for Final Judgment” (Docket No. 39) is DENIED as moot; 6. Plaintiff’s “Complaint” is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 7. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mark this case closed. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl Jeffrey L. Schmehl, 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?