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)

Download PDF
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?