Ali v. Benning et al
Filing
73
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry)1. Defendants motion (Doc. 58) for summary judgment is GRANTED.2. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.3. Plaintiffs motion (Doc. 71) for a scheduling order is DENIED.4. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.6. Any appeal from this order is deemed frivolous and not in good faith.See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(eo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MUSTAFI ALI ,
Plaintiff,
v.
C. BENNING et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1:18-cv-1068
Hon. John E. Jones III
ORDER
March 13, 2020
NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of Defendants’ motion (Doc. 58)
for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 71) for a scheduling order, and for the reasons set forth in
the Court’s Memorandum of the same date, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
Defendants’ motion (Doc. 58) for summary judgment is GRANTED.
2.
The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of
Defendants and against Plaintiff.
3.
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 71) for a scheduling order is DENIED.
4.
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims.
5.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
6.
Any appeal from this order is deemed frivolous and not in good faith.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
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?