Davis v. Mooney et al
Filing
91
ORDER: In accord with the accompanying Memorandum 90 ; The R and R 84 ,is ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART as follows:1) The recommendation that the mtn for summary judgment 72 onthe Eighth Amendment claim against Dft Williams be denied is AD OPTED.2) The recommendation that the mtn for summary judgment (Doc. 72) onthe Eighth Amendment claim for failure to intervene against Dfts Bensonand Kimbrel be denied is ADOPTED.3) The recommendation that the mtn for summary judgment (Doc. 72) on the First Amendment claim for retaliation against Dft Hopwood be denied is REJECTED. Instead, Pltfs claim of retaliation against Dft Hopwood is DISMISSED.4) The recommendation that the mtn for summary judgment (Doc. 72) otherwise be granted is ADOPTED.5 ) The recommendation that the claims asserted against Dft CO Trainee John Doe be dismissed is ADOPTED. Dft CO Trainee John Doe is TERMINATED as a party in this action.6) The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of Dfts Superintendent Vincent Mooney, Deputy Miller, Deputy Lascavage, Intelligence Captain Stetler, Lieutenant Shife, CO Hopwood, CO Schell, Program Review Committee, Unit Manager Foulds, Counselor Rich Cory, Counselor Fetterman, and Lieutenant Carpenter and against Pltf.7) A separate order will issue setting a trial date. Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 4/10/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAFIYQ DAVIS,
Plaintiff
v.
SUPERINTENDENT MOONEY,
et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:CV-14-01423
(Judge Rambo)
(Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab)
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 84),
addressing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 72), is ADOPTED
IN PART and REJECTED IN PART as follows:
1) The recommendation that the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 72) on
the Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect against Defendant Williams be
denied is ADOPTED.
2) The recommendation that the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 72) on
the Eighth Amendment claim for failure to intervene against Defendants Benson
and Kimbrel be denied is ADOPTED.
3) The recommendation that the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 72) on
the First Amendment claim for retaliation against Defendant Hopwood be denied
is REJECTED. Instead, Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation against Defendant
Hopwood is DISMISSED.
4) The recommendation that the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 72)
otherwise be granted is ADOPTED.
5) The recommendation that the claims asserted against Defendant
Corrections Officer Trainee John Doe be dismissed is ADOPTED. Defendant
Corrections Officer Trainee John Doe is TERMINATED as a party in this action.
6) The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of
Defendants Superintendent Vincent Mooney, Deputy Miller, Deputy Lascavage,
Intelligence Captain Stetler, Lieutenant Shife, Correctional Officer Hopwood,
Correctional Officer Schell, Program Review Committee, Unit Manager Foulds,
Counselor Rich Cory, Counselor Fetterman, and Lieutenant Carpenter and against
Plaintiff.
7) A separate order will issue setting a trial date.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: April 10, 2017.
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?