Walker v. Ebbert et al

Filing 75

ORDER (Memorandum 74 filed previously as separate docket entry) - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defts' MSJ 61 GRANTED in favor of Defts Alama, Beachel, Ebbert, Fasciana, Good, Heim, Hess, Hughes, MOttern, Pigos & White & against pltf for fa ilure to exhaust admin remedies - Jdgmt entered in favor of Defts & against Pltf.; 2. Pltf's motion for default jdgmt 72 DENIED.; 3. Lt. Jason Seeba DISMISSED w/out prejudice pursuant to FRCP 4(m).; 4. Clrk of Ct directed to TERMINATE C.O. A. Simmons & Dr. Steven Skalka from action.; 5. Clrk of Ct directed to CLOSE case.; 6. Any appeal from this order DEEMED frivolous & not in good faith... (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 8/1/18. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CEDRIC TYRONE WALKER, Plaintiff v. WARDEN DAVID J. EBBERT, et al., Defendants : : : : : : : : No. 1:16-cv-02387 (Judge Rambo) ORDER AND NOW, on this 1st day of August 2018, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 61), is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Alama, Beachel, Ebbert, Fasciana, Good, Heim, Hess, Hughes, Mottern, Pigos, and White, and against Plaintiff for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff; 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 72), is DENIED; 3. Lt. Jason Seeba is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE C.O. A. Simmons and Dr. Steven Skalka from this action; 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case; and 6. Any appeal from this Order is DEEMED frivolous and not in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). s/Sylvia H. Rambo SYLVIA H. RAMBO United States District Judge

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?