MARMOLEJOS et al v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
Filing
175
ORDER that Defendant's motion for summary judgment 155 is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against Defendant, but denied as to Plaintiffssupplemental claims, insofar as said claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to re-file the same in state court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment 152 and request for certification of a class action are DENIED. The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, dated January 9, 2019 172 , is adopted as the opinion of the court.The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed. Signed by Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 2/28/19. (lrw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARVIN MARMOLEJOS and
KEVIN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
v.
C.A. No. 17-13 Erie
)
)
)
District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo
GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, )
et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This action was commenced by the filing of a Complaint, accompanied by a motion to
proceed in form a pauperis, on January 18, 2017, against Defendants Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections ("DOC") and Global Tel*Link Corporation ("Global"). The case was assigned to
United States District Judge Barbara Rothstein, as presiding judge, and was referred to the
undersigned, who was then a United States Magistrate Judge, for all pretrial matters.
By Order dated March 12, 2018, District Judge Rothstein adopted the undersigned's
Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 135] and granted the DOC's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim [ECF No. 141], leaving Global as the only Defendant in this case. On
June 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 152], and Defendant
Global filed its own motion for summary judgment on June 15, 2018 [ECF No. 155].
On September 14, 2018, the undersigned was sworn in as a United States District Judge,
and this case was reassigned to this Court's docket on September 18, 2018. This matter was
thereafter referred to newly appointed United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo for
report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), and
Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.
On January 9, 2019, Judge Lanzillo issued a Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
request for class certification be denied, and that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be
granted as to Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against Defendant, but denied as to Plaintiffs
supplemental state law claims, with the further recommendation that the supplemental claims be
dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to re-file the same in state court. [ECF No. 172].
Service of the R&R was made on Plaintiffs at their addresses of record, via first class United
States mail. Objections to the R&R were due from Plaintiffs by February 22, 2019; however, no
objections have been filed.
After de novo review of the motions and documents in this case, together with the report
and recommendation, the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2019;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment [ECF No.
155] is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against Defendant, but denied as to Plaintiffs
supplemental claims, insofar as said claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiffs right
to re-file the same in state court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment [ECF No. 152] and request for certification of a class action are DENIED. The report
and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, dated January 9, 2019 [ECF No. 172], is
adopted as the opinion of the court.
The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed.
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States District Judge
cc:
Richard A. Lanzillo
U.S. Magistrate Judge
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?