Brackbill v. Ruff et al
Filing
26
ORDER (Memorandum 25 filed previously as separate docket entry) granting in part & denying in part defts' MTD 18 , DISMISSING Counts II, VI & X w/out prejudice, DISMISSING Count III as to deft Ian L. Dawson w/out prejudice, denying MTD 18 in all other respects, & granting pltf leave to amend his pleading w/in 20 days of date of this order - in absence of timely-filed amended complaint action shall proceed on remaining claims. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/22/18. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CALVIN E. BRACKBILL,
Plaintiff
v.
STEPHEN J. RUFF, GREGORY A.
HILL, IAN L. DAWSON, TYRON E.
MEIK, and CITY OF HARRISBURG,
PA,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1046
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2018, upon consideration of defendants’
motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
and the parties’ respective briefs in support of and opposition to said motion (Docs.
19-21), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as follows.
a.
Count II, Count VI, and Count X are DISMISSED without
prejudice.
b.
Count III is DISMISSED as to defendant Ian L. Dawson without
prejudice.
c.
Defendants’ motion (Doc. 18) to dismiss is denied in all other
respects.
2.
Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his pleading within twenty (20)
days of the date of this order, consistent with the above paragraphs
and the accompanying memorandum. In the absence of a timely-filed
amended complaint, the above-captioned action shall proceed on the
remaining claims.
/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?