Ashton v. Knepp et al

Filing 135

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that MJ Mehalchicks Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 119) is ADOPTED, Defendants objections (Doc. No. 120) are OVERRULED, and Defendants motions to dismiss with prejudice (Doc. Nos. 77, 81) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management. 77 81 119 Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 8/5/14. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (sc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT ASHTON,
Plaintiff
v.
CHARLES T. KNEPP, et al.,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:12-cv-01920
(Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

ORDER
AND NOW, on this 5th day of August 2014, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 119) is ADOPTED,
Defendants’ objections (Doc. No. 120) are OVERRULED, and Defendants’ motions to dismiss
with prejudice (Doc. Nos. 77, 81) are GRANTED with respect to the follow claims:
(1)

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Knepp, Gingerich, Jacobson, Reedy,
Tritt, Sommers, and Pepperling in their official capacities;

(2)

Plaintiff’s claims against the Department of Corrections, the Bureau of
Community Corrections, Wernersville Community Corrections Center,
and Luzerne County Probation Services as barred by the Eleventh
Amendment;

(3)

Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims against all Defendants;

(4)

Plaintiff’s claims against Tritt, Sommers, Gingerich, and Jacobson in their
supervisory roles;

(5)

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims;

(6)

Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim;

(7)

Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Act claim;

(8)

Plaintiff’s municipal liability claims against Defendants the Department of
Corrections, the Bureau of Community Corrections, Wernersville
Community Corrections Cetner, Luzerne County Probation Services, Tritt,
Sommers, Gingerich, and Jacobson;

(9)

Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claims;

(10)

Plaintiff’s credit for time claims against the Department of Corrections;

(11)

Plaintiff’s Anti-Discimination claim pursuant to the Pennsylvania
Constitution;

(12)

Plaintiff’s IIED claim; and,

(13)

Plaintiff’s defamation claim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants’ motion to dismiss the following
claims (Doc. No. 77) is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s right to amend his
complaint regarding these claims within thirty days of the date of this order:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation claims
against Defendants Knepp, Gingerich, and Jacobson; and

(2)

Plaintiff’s Pennsylvania Human Relations Act claim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 77) is
DENIED with respect to:
(1)

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Knepp
and Gingerich,

(2)

Plaintiff’s Higher Education Act claim,

(3)

Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Claim against Defendants Knepp, Gingerich,
Reedy, and Jacobson, and,

(4)

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Knepp,
Gingerich, and Reedy.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge
for further pretrial management.
S/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania