Enright v. United States Of America et al

Filing 86

ORDER (Memorandum 85 filed previously as separate docket entry) GRANTING in part & DENYING in part defts' MTDs 59 & 72 ... (see Paras 1a-b for specifics), GRANTING in part & DENYING in part PrimeCare & Heckman's MTD 70 ... (see Paras 2a-b for specifics), & directing defts to file response to 2nd amended complaint by 10/6/16. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/15/16. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JUSTIN MICHAEL ENRIGHT, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-103 (Chief Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2016, upon consideration of defendants’ motions (Docs. 59, 70, 72) to dismiss, and for the reasons set forth in the court’s memorandum of the same date, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Perry County defendants’ motions (Docs. 59, 72) to dismiss are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. b. 2. The motion is GRANTED with respect to the Sixth Amendment, Americans with Disabilities Act, and substantive due process claims, and these claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. The motion (Doc. 70) to dismiss filed by PrimeCare and Heckman is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. The motion is GRANTED with respect to the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and state law medical negligence claims, and these claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. b. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. 3. Defendants shall file an answer to Enright’s second amended complaint (Doc. 58) or appropriate pretrial motion on or before Thursday, October 6, 2016. /S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

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?