MAY v. CASH et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM ORDER - it is hereby Ordered that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant John Shedlock, D.O. (ECF No. 24 ) is GRANTED and all claims against Defendant Shedlock are dismissed with prejudice. It is further Ordered that the Report and Rec ommendation (ECF No. 55) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. It is further Ordered that this matter is remanded back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 1/23/2014. (dlg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) Civil Action No.3: 13-CV-00069 ) ) District Judge Kim R. Gibson I ) ) Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy ) ) ) ) EDWARD MAY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL CASH, D.O., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER The above captioned case was initiated on March 27, 2013 by the filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. On July 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16), which remains the operative complaint. Named as Defendants are Michael Cash, D.O., Steven Burk, P.A., Jason Kopera, R.N., Normal Weidlich, Jeannette Nagy Pharmacy, Anthony Pazcoquin (collectively referred to as the "Federal Defendants"), and John Shedlock, D.O, a non-Bureau of Prisons contract optometrist. Defendant John Shedlock, D.O., filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking to have Plaintiffs claims against him dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Pennsylvania Rule ofCivi1 Procedure 1042.3 and 1042. On December 20,2013, the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 55) recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted, that amendment of the Amended Complaint would be futile, and that the claims against Defendant Shedlock should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff was served with the Report and Recommendation at his listed address and was advised that he had until January 6, 2014, to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Thereafter, Plaintiffwas granted an extension oftime until January 21, 2014, to file written objections. On January 22, 2014, the Court received a document entitled "Response to Defendant John Shedlock Motion to Dismiss and Opinion of Magistrate," (ECF No. 61 ), in which Plaintiff affirmatively states, inter alia, that "Plaintiff accepts the order issued by the Magistrate as it pertains to Defendant Shedlock and waives any objections to said order." After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiffs "Response to Defendant John Shedlock Motion to Dismiss and Opinion of Magistrate," the follow~~order is entered: AND NOW, this 23 day of January, 2014; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant John Shedlock, D.O. (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED and all claims against Defendant Shedlock are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 55) is ADOPTED as the Opinion ofthe Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (. ~¥.~ Kim R. Gibson United States District Judge 2 cc: EDWARDMAY 21597-039 LORETTO FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 1000 LORETTO, P A 15940 Megan E. Farrell United States Attorney's Office Email: megan.farrell@usdoj .gov Sharon Lehman Bliss Snyder & Andrews Email: Blisss@nationwide.com 3

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?