Payne v. Wetzel et al

Filing 74

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson; ; granting in part and denying in part 67 Motion ; adopting 68 Report and Recommendations.1. The Report & Recommendation (Doc. 68) is ADOPT ED for the reasons stated therein. 2. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 70) are OVERRULED. 3. Plaintiffs Motion to Serve Complaint (Doc. 67) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: The Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 63) shall be served on Defen dants Murray, Southers, Henry, Chambers, Zwerzyna, Carberry, Whalen, Winfield, Martin, and Coppoza. Defendants DePew, Digby, Miller, Kalsky, Kcompt, Pohlmuller, Moore, Beard, and John are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4. The case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings consistent with this Order.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 7/9/2015. (bg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSHUA PAYNE, Plaintiff v. 3:12·CV·1932 (JUDGE MARIANI) JOHN WETZEL, et at, Defendant ORDER AND NOW, THIS qlfrtAY OF JULY, 2015, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report & Recommendation (Doc. 68), Plaintiffs Objections thereto (Doc. 70), and Plaintiffs Motion to Serve Complaint (Doc. 67), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report & Recommendation (Doc. 68) is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein. 2. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 70) are OVERRULED. 3. Plaintiffs Motion to Serve Complaint (Doc. 67) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 63) shall be served on Defendants Murray, Southers, Henry, Chambers, Zwerzyna, Carberry, Whalen, Winfield, Martin, and Coppoza. b. Defendants DePew, Digby, Miller, Kalsky, Kcompt, Pohlmuller, Moore, Beard, and John are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4. The case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings consistent with this Order. 2

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?