Hollinghead et al v. City of York, Pennsylvania et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Carlson 27 , DENYING York Sewer Authority's motion to dismiss 11 , GRANTING deft Monacacy Valley Elec's motion to dismiss 10 w/ re: Counts I-II, GRANTING deft Monacacy Valley 's motion to dismiss 10 w/ re: Count V of pltf's complaint & DENYING MTD 10 w/ re: Count VI of pltfs' complaint, GRANTING Monocacy's motion for more definitive statement, granting pltfs leave to file amended complaint w/in 20 days of date of this order, & REMANDING case to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 12/12/12. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES L. HOLLINGHEAD and
CITY OF YORK, PENNSYLVANIA,
YORK SEWER AUTHORITY, and
MONACACY VALLEY ELECTRIC, INC.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-260
AND NOW, this 12th day of December, 2012, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 27),
recommending (1) that Defendant York Sewer Authority’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) be
denied, (2) that Defendant Monacacy Valley Electric, Inc.’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) be
granted with respect to Counts I-II, without prejudice, (3) that Monacacy Valley Electric,
Inc.’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) be granted with respect to Count V and denied with
respect to Count VI; and (4) that Monacacy’s motion for more definitive statement as to
Count VI should be granted, and, following an independent review of the record, and
noting that plaintiffs filed objections1 to the report on November 21, 2012 (Doc. 30), and
Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the
report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires
‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL
4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).
the court finding Judge Carlson’s analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the
court finding plaintiffs’ objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge
Carlson’s report (Doc. 27), it is hereby ORDERED that:
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 27) are
Defendant York Sewer Authority’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
Defendant Monacacy Valley Electric, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10),
with respect to Counts I-II is GRANTED.
Defendant Monacacy Valley Electric, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is
GRANTED with respect to Count V of plaintiffs’ complaint and DENIED
with respect to Count VI of plaintiffs’ complaint.
Monocacy’s motion for more definitive statement as to Count VI is
Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint within twenty (20)
days of the date of this order, which shall address the deficiencies set forth
in Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation. Failure to file an
amended complaint within the specified time period will result in the
matter proceeding on only the remaining counts of the original complaint.
The above-captioned case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for
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?