BREELAND v. SISSEM
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM ORDER: AND NOW, this 3rd Day of June, 2013, Inasmuch as the merits of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim turn on genuinely disputed issues of material fact, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 24 sha ll be, and hereby is, DENIED and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment 43 shall likewise be, and hereby is, DENIED. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on May 14, 2013 52 , is adopted as the opinion of this Court. In light of the foregoing and the fact that the Plaintiff filed objections and a supporting brief in response to the Report and Recommendation which this Court considered on a de novo basis, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification on Proceedings 53 shall be, and hereby is, DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 6/3/2013. (kas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH BREELAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. SISSEM,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:11-cv-148-SJM-SPB
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff’s complaint in this civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court
on July 18, 2011 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise
Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on May 14, 2013
[52], recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [24] be denied and
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [43] be denied. The parties were given
fourteen (14) days within which to file any objections to the R&R. Plaintiff filed his
objections [54] on May 28, 2013. On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed a brief in support of
his objections [55]. No objections have been filed to date from the Defendant.
After de novo review of the complaint and documents in the case, together with
the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R, and his brief in
support of objections, the following order is entered:
Page 1 of 2
AND NOW, this 3rd Day of June, 2013,
Inasmuch as the merits of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim turn on genuinely
disputed issues of material fact, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment [24] shall be, and hereby is, DENIED and the Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment [43] shall likewise be, and hereby is, DENIED.
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on May 14,
2013 [52], is adopted as the opinion of this Court.
In light of the foregoing and the fact that the Plaintiff filed objections and a
supporting brief in response to the Report and Recommendation which this Court
considered on a de novo basis, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Clarification on Proceedings [53] shall be, and hereby is, DENIED as moot.
s/
Sean J. McLaughlin
SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN
Chief United States District Judge
cm:
All parties of record
U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?