Markle v. Adams

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab's 38 39 Reports and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY. The 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED, and all claims against those defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The 29 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Michael R. Adams is DENIED. This matter is remanded to Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 12/28/2018. (jr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 4:18-CV-00157

JOSEPH ROBERT MARKLE,

(Judge Brann)

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL R. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

DECEMBER 28, 2018
1.

On April 10, 2018, Defendants Daniel J. Barrett, Brian Gallagher, Albert
C. Ondrey, and Richard Wilson moved to dismiss Plaintiff Joseph Robert
Markle’s Amended Complaint.

2.

On May 7, 2018, Defendant Michael R. Adams also moved to dismiss that
complaint.

3.

On October 29, 2018, Chief Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab
recommended that this Court grant the motion filed by Mr. Barrett, Mr.
Gallagher, Mr. Ondrey, and Mr. Wilson, but deny the motion filed by Mr.
Adams.

4.

Objections to these Reports and Recommendations were due by November
13, 2018, but none were filed.

5.

This Court has reviewed these Reports and Recommendation and has
found “no clear error on the face of the record.”1

6.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
a.

Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s Reports and Recommendations,
ECF Nos. 38 and 39, are ADOPTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

b.

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Daniel J. Barrett, Brian
Gallagher, Albert C. Ondrey, and Richard Wilson, is GRANTED,
and all claims against those defendants are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

c.

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Michael R. Adams is
DENIED.

7.

This matter is remanded to Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab for further
proceedings.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

1

Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010).