WHITNEY v. WETZEL et al

Filing 41

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion to Dismiss as follows: (a) The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's claims under the First Amendment that his privileged mail was improperly opened;(b) The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Defendants' request to dismiss Defendants Wetzel, House, Switzer, Linderman, and Oppman based on lack of personal knowledge; (c) The Motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment Retaliation claim, his Eighth Amend ment conditions of confinement claim, and his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. (d) The Motion is DENIED with respect to Defendants request to dismiss Defendant Coleman. It is further ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. [37 ]) dated August 21, 2013, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court, as supplemented by the memorandum opinion ((ECF No. 40 ). It is further ORDERED that the remaining Defendants shall file a responsive pleading in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4)(A). It is further ORDERED that this matter is remanded back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 10/24/2013. (smc )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES WHITNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2: 12-cv-01623
Chief United States District Judge
Joy Flowers Conti
United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy

ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of October, 2013, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART as follows:
(a)

The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s claims under the First

Amendment that his privileged mail was improperly opened;
(b)

The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Defendants’ request to dismiss

Defendants Wetzel, House, Switzer, Linderman, and Oppman based on lack of personal
knowledge;
(c)

The Motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment Retaliation

claim, his Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, and his Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection claim;
1

(d)

The Motion is DENIED with respect to Defendants’ request to dismiss Defendant

Coleman.

It is further ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 37) dated
August 21, 2013, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court, as supplemented by the
memorandum opinion accompanying this order.

It is further ORDERED that the remaining Defendants shall file a responsive pleading in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4)(A).

It is further ORDERED that this matter is remanded back to the magistrate judge for all
further pretrial proceedings.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joy Flowers Conti
Joy Flowers Conti
Chief, United States District Judge
cc:

CHARLES WHITNEY
DM 3996
SCI Benner
301 Institution Drive
Bellefonte, PA 16823
Yana L. Chudnovsky
Deputy Attorney General
2

Email: [e-mail]

3