Harvey et al v. Cline et al

Filing 90

ORDER - In accord with the accompanying Memorandum 89 : 1. Dfts mtn for reconsideration 83 is GRANTED, and the portions of the Courts 2/26/21 Memorandum and Order 81 and 82 denying summary judgment with respect to Pltf Harveys Eighth Amendment failure to protect and denial of medical care claims against Dft Cline are VACATED;2. Dfts mtn for summary judgment 75 is GRANTED with respect to Pltf Harveys Eighth Amendment failure to protect and denial of medical care claims against Dft Cline; 3. Dfts second mtn for summary judgment 85 is GRANTED as to Pltfs First Amendment retaliation claims and Pltf Harveys damages claims;4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Dfts Cline, Ferguson, and the DOC and against Pltfs Harvey and Hawkins as to all of Pltfs claims asserted against them pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;5. Pltfs state law tort claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); and6. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned action. Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 4/27/21. (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 27th day of April 2021, for the reasons set forth in the
Memorandum accompanying this Order, and upon consideration of the Court’s
February 26, 2021 Memorandum and Order (Doc. Nos. 81, 82), IT IS ORDERED
THAT:
1.

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 83) is GRANTED,
and the portions of the Court’s February 26, 2021 Memorandum and
Order (Doc. Nos. 81, 82) denying summary judgment with respect to
Plaintiff Harvey’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect and denial of
medical care claims against Defendant Cline are VACATED;

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 75) is
GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff Harvey’s Eighth Amendment
failure to protect and denial of medical care claims against Defendant
Cline;

3.

Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 85) is
GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claims and
Plaintiff Harvey’s damages claims;

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants
Cline, Ferguson, and the DOC and against Plaintiffs Harvey and

Hawkins as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims asserted against them pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983;
5.

Plaintiffs’ state law tort claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); and

6.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned action.
s/ Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge

2