White v. Wireman et al

Filing 18

ORDER: Upon consideration of the R and R 13 of MJ Saporito, Jr.: (1) Dfts mtn to dismiss 5 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.(2) Pltfs claims in Counts 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10 of the complaint are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).(3) All claims in Count 1 as to dft Smith are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).(4) Pltfs § 1981 claims in Count 1 a re DISMISSED as to dfts Duvall and Eckard for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).(5) Pltfs First Amendment Free Speech Clause retaliation claim in Count 1 is DISMISSED as to dfts Duvall and Eckard for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).(6) Pltfs First Amendment Free Speech Clause claim in Count 1 regarding interference with atty communication may proceed as stated against dfts Duvall and Eckard.(7 ) Pltfs claims in Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 may proceed as stated in the complaint.(8) Pltf is granted leave to amend any and all dismissed claims or portions thereof. Pltf shall file his amended complaint within (21) days of the date of this order.(9) This matter is REMANDED to MJ Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. for further proceedings.Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 5/19/17. (ma)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IVAN WHITE,
Plaintiff
v.
DARRELL WIREMAN, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
: CASE NO. 1:16-CV-675
:
:
:

ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2017, in accord with the accompanying
memorandum, upon consideration of the March 1, 2017 report and recommendation (Doc.
13) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., after consideration of Plaintiff’s
objections, and after independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that:
(1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
(2) Plaintiff’s claims in Counts 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10 of the complaint are
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
(3) All claims in Count 1 as to defendant Smith are DISMISSED for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).
(4) Plaintiff’s § 1981 claims in Count 1 are DISMISSED as to defendants
Duvall and Eckard for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
(5) Plaintiff’s First Amendment Free Speech Clause retaliation claim in
Count 1 is DISMISSED as to defendants Duvall and Eckard for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

(6) Plaintiff’s First Amendment Free Speech Clause claim in Count 1
regarding interference with attorney communication may proceed as
stated against defendants Duvall and Eckard.
(7) Plaintiff’s claims in Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 may proceed as stated in
the complaint.
(8) Plaintiff is granted leave to amend any and all dismissed claims or
portions thereof. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order.
(9) This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito,
Jr. for further proceedings.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

2