Harvey et al v. Cline et al

Filing 82

ORDER - In accord with the accompanying Memorandum 81 : 1. Dfts mtn for summary judgment 75 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:a. GRANTED with respect to: (1) Pltfs § 1983 claims against Dft DOC; (2) Pltfs § 1983 claims a gainst Dft Ferguson; (3) Pltf Hawkins § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims against Dft Cline; (4) Pltfs Fourteenth Amendment due process claims concerning the loss of property; and (4) Pltfs § 1983 civil conspiracy claims against Dfts, and the Cl erk of Court is directed to defer the entry of judgment in favor of Dfts on these claims until the conclusion of the above-captioned proceedings;b. The motion (Doc. No. 75) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to (1) Plaintiffs First Amendment re taliation claims; and (2) Plaintiffs state law claims against Defendants;c. The mtn (Doc. No. 75) is DENIED with respect to Pltf Harveys § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims regarding failure to protect and denial of medical care against Dft Cline; an d2. Dfts may file, within (30) days of the date of this Order, a second mtn for summary judgment addressing Pltfs First Amendment retaliation claims, as well as Pltfs state law claims against Dfts. Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 2/26/21. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
VINCENT HARVEY and
RICHARD HAWKINS,
Plaintiffs
v.
CO1 D. CLINE, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:18-cv-939
(Judge Rambo)

ORDER
AND NOW, on this 26th day of February 2021, for the reasons set forth in
the Memorandum accompanying this Order, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 75) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
a.

The motion (Doc. No. 75) is GRANTED with respect to: (1)
Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against Defendant DOC; (2) Plaintiffs’
§ 1983 claims against Defendant Ferguson; (3) Plaintiff
Hawkins’ § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant
Cline; (4) Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process claims
concerning the loss of property; and (4) Plaintiffs’ § 1983 civil
conspiracy claims against Defendants, and the Clerk of Court is
directed to defer the entry of judgment in favor of Defendants on
these claims until the conclusion of the above-captioned
proceedings;

b.

The motion (Doc. No. 75) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE with respect to (1) Plaintiffs’ First Amendment
retaliation claims; and (2) Plaintiffs’ state law claims against
Defendants;

c.

The motion (Doc. No. 75) is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff
Harvey’s § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims regarding failure to
protect and denial of medical care against Defendant Cline; and

2.

Defendants may file, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, a
second motion for summary judgment addressing Plaintiffs’ First
Amendment retaliation claims, as well as Plaintiff’s state law claims
against Defendants.
s/ Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge

2