LEPRE v. LUKUS et al

Filing 133

ORDER 1. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 128, Doc. 129) are OVERRULED. 2. The Report &Recommendation (Doc. 127) is ADOPTED. 3. The Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Paul Lukus, Forest City Police Department, and Susquehanna County Defendants (Doc. 1 06, Doc. 107, Doc. 122) are GRANTED. 4. To the extent Plaintiffs Procedural and Substantive Due Process claims, Equal Protection claim, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Conspiracy claim, and direct constitutional challenge to 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4341 (b) are not barred for the reasons set forth inthe Report &Recommendation (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the absence of Monel/liability), they are DISMISSED for failure to state aclaim upon which relief can be granted. 5. Plaintiff is NOT granted leave to amend further.6. Plaintiff is on NOTICE that the Court is considering dismissing the two remaining defendants, Desiree Shifler-Ferraro and Christine Lukus for the reasons articulated in the attached Memorandum Opinion. a. ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 15, 2014, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why these defendants should not be dismissed. \Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 1/15/14. (jfg)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GERALD S. LEPRE, JR.

Plaintiff

v.

3:13·CV·796
(JUDGE MARIANI)

PAUL LUKUS, et al.,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, THIS LfJH DAY OF JANUARY 2014, upon de novo review of
Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report &Recommendation (Doc. 127), Plaintiffs Objections
thereto (Doc. 128, Doc. 129), the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Paul Lukus, Forest
City Police Department, and Susquehanna County Defendants (Doc. 106, Doc. 107, Doc.
122), and all accompanying briefs, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 128, Doc. 129) are OVERRULED.
2. The Report &Recommendation (Doc. 127) is ADOPTED.
3. The Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Paul Lukus, Forest City Police
Department, and Susquehanna County Defendants (Doc. 106, Doc. 107, Doc. 122)
are GRANTED.
4. To the extent Plaintiffs Procedural and Substantive Due Process claims, Equal
Protection claim, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Conspiracy claim, and direct constitutional
challenge to 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4341 (b) are not barred for the reasons set forth in

the Report & Recommendation (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the absence of
Monel/liability), they are DISMISSED for failure to state aclaim upon which relief
can be granted.
5. Plaintiff is NOT granted leave to amend further.
6. Plaintiff is on NOTICE that the Court is considering dismissing the two remaining
defendants, Desiree Shifler-Ferraro and Christine Lukus for the reasons articulated
in the attached Memorandum Opinion.
a. ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 15, 2014, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why
these defendants should not be dismissed.

2