Morris et al v. Kesselring et al

Filing 107

ORDER DENYING pltfs' objections & supp'ng brs 103 & 104 to memo & order 102 of 10/27/10 by MJ Prince & directing that pltfs shall file their 2nd amended complaint by 12/28/10 & responses thereto shall be filed in acc w/ procedures & subject to conditions set forth in MJ Prince's 10/17/10 memo & order. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 12/06/10. (ki )

Download PDF
Morris et al v. Kesselring et al Doc. 107 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAVID L. MORRIS, PAMELA MORRIS, and RANDY MORRIS, Plaintiffs v. RONALD KESSELRING, et al., Defendants : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1739 (Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2010, upon consideration of plaintiffs' objections and supporting brief (Docs. 103, 104) to the memorandum and nondispositive order of the Honorable William T. Prince dated October 27, 2010 (Doc. 102), as well as the response of defendants Brady, Kesselring, Rowe, Whitten, and Zumbrum (Doc. 105) thereto, and the court concluding that plaintiffs' amended complaint remains clearly deficient in its failure to apprise the reader of necessary factual details (i.e. . . . "who is alleged to have done what to whom and when." October 27, 2010 Memorandum at p. 5), and the court finding no portion of Judge Prince's order to be "clearly erroneous or contrary to law," See L.R. 72.2, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' objections are DENIED. It is hereby ORDERED Dockets.Justia.com that plaintiffs shall file their second amended complaint on or before December 28, 2010, and responses thereto shall be filed in accordance with the procedures and subject to the conditions set forth in Judge Prince's October 27, 2010, Memorandum and Order. S/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge

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?