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)

Download PDF
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?