Raj v. Dickson City Borough et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Dismiss. (1)The Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 7), filed by defendant Dickson CityBorough with respect to the claims raised against it in Count I ofthe plaintiffs complaint, (Doc. 1), is DENIED; and (2)The defendants Dickson City Borough and Michael Ranakoski aredirected to file their answers to plaintiffs complaint within 7 daysof the date of this Order.Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 1/26/2018 (bg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:
ANTHONY RAJ,
:
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-0692
:

v.

(JUDGE MANNION)
:

DICKSON CITY BOROUGH and
MICHAEL RANAKOSKI,

:

Defendants

:
ORDER

In accordance with the Memorandum issued this same day, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1)

The Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 7), filed by defendant Dickson City
Borough with respect to the claims raised against it in Count I of
the plaintiff’s complaint, (Doc. 1), is DENIED; and

(2)

The defendants Dickson City Borough and Michael Ranakoski are
directed to file their answers to plaintiff’s complaint within 7 days
of the date of this Order.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATED: January 26, 2018
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2017 MEMORANDA\17-0692-01-ORDER.wpd