Boldrini v. Wilson et al

Filing 93

ORDER re 92 Memorandum (Order to follow as separate docket entry) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(1)Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 65) is DENIED.(2)Plaintiffs Motion to Subpoena Record Direct to Defendants Martin R. Wilson, D. Peter Johns on, and Jane Doe from Union County, Pennsylvania (Doc. 72) is DENIED as moot.(3)Plaintiffs Motion to Subpoena Record Direct to Defendant Daniel J. Barrett from Bradford County, Pennsylvania (Doc. 73) is DENIED as moot.(4)Plaintiffs Motion to Subpoena Record Direct to Defendants William A. Shaw, Jr., and F. Cortez Bell, III, from Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (Doc. 74) is DENIED as moot. (5)Plaintiffs Motion to Subpoena Record Direct to Defendant Carol Ponce (Doc. 76) is DENIED as moot.(6)Plain tiffs Motion to Subpoena Record Direct to Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Regarding Plaintiffs Criminal Record (Doc. 77) is DENIED as moot.(7)Plaintiffs Motion to the Court for Leave to File his 1-25-2013 Addendum to his Motion for Reconsidera tion (Doc. 79) is GRANTED.(8)Defendants Martin R. Wilson, Peter D. Johnson, Jane Doe, Daniel J. Barrett, F. Cortez Bell, III, and William A. Shaw, Jr.s Motion to Stay Discovery and Objections to Plaintiffs Motions to Subpoena Record and/or to Compel Discovery (Doc. 75) is DENIED as moot. (9)Plaintiffs Motion to Request Oral Argument (Doc. 89) is DENIED.Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 2/19/13. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTONELLO BOLDRINI,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-11-1771

Plaintiff,

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

v.

(MAGISTRATE JUDGE BLEWITT)

MARTIN R. WILSON, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

NOW, this 19th day of February, 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 65) is DENIED.

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena Record Direct to Defendants Martin R. Wilson, D. Peter
Johnson, and Jane Doe from Union County, Pennsylvania (Doc. 72) is DENIED as moot.

(3)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena Record Direct to Defendant Daniel J. Barrett from Bradford
County, Pennsylvania (Doc. 73) is DENIED as moot.

(4)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena Record Direct to Defendants William A. Shaw, Jr., and F.
Cortez Bell, III, from Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (Doc. 74) is DENIED as moot.

(5)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena Record Direct to Defendant Carol Ponce (Doc. 76) is
DENIED as moot.

(6)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena Record Direct to Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner
Regarding Plaintiff’s Criminal Record (Doc. 77) is DENIED as moot.

(7)

Plaintiff’s Motion to the Court for Leave to File his 1-25-2013 Addendum to his Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 79) is GRANTED.

(8)

Defendants Martin R. Wilson, Peter D. Johnson, Jane Doe, Daniel J. Barrett, F. Cortez
Bell, III, and William A. Shaw, Jr.’s Motion to Stay Discovery and Objections to Plaintiff’s
Motions to Subpoena Record and/or to Compel Discovery (Doc. 75) is DENIED as moot.

(9)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Oral Argument (Doc. 89) is DENIED.1
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge

1

Under M.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.9, “[t]he judge, in his or her discretion, may grant
oral argument . . . at the request of either or both parties.”