Sargent v. Larson et al

Filing 64

ORDER (Memorandum 63 filed previously as separate docket entry) GRANTING defts' Benoit & Joyce's MSJ 45 & directing Clrk of Ct to enter jdgmt in favor of said defts & against pltf, GRANTING Luzerne County defts' MTD 47 , DISMISSIN G action against Diane Popacheck & Ranaldo Diaz pursuant to Rule 4(m) of FRCP, directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case & deeming any appeal from this order as frivolous & not in good faith. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/22/19. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SCOTT SARGENT, Plaintiff v. JAMES LARSON, et al., Defendants : : : : : : : : : CIVIL NO. 1:17-CV-511 (Chief Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2019, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 45) for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by defendants Benoit and Joyce, and the Luzerne County defendants’ motion (Doc. 47) to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and for the reasons set forth in the court’s memorandum of the same date, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The motion (Doc. 45) for summary judgment by defendants Benoit and Joyce is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of defendants David Benoit and Elizabeth Joyce, and against plaintiff. 2. The motion (Doc. 47) to dismiss by the Luzerne County defendants is GRANTED. 3. The action against Diane Popacheck and Ranaldo Diaz is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 5. Any appeal from this order is deemed frivolous and not in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). /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?