HASAN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM ORDER - it is Ordered that the motion to certify a class at docket no. 62 is denied without prejudice, and the motion to alter the judgment at docket no. 63 is denied; 65 Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 12/8/2015. (dlg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONCERNED CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF DUQUESNE (LARRY HASAN), Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants Case No. 3:14-cv-250-KRG-KAP Memorandum Order Plaintiff's motion to certify a class at docket no. 62 and motion to alter the judgment at docket no. 63 were referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto under 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b) (3) and Local Rule 72 for Magistrate Judges. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on November 5, 2015, docket no. 65, recommending that the motion to certify a class be denied without prejudice and the motion to alter the judgment be denied. The parties were notified that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636 (b) (1), they had fourteen days to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No one has filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. After review of the Report and Recommendation and noting the lack of objection thereto, the following order is entered: AND NOW, this g-fh day of December, 2015, it is ORDERED that the motion to certify a class at docket no. 62 is denied without prejudice, judgment at docket no. 63 is denied. and the motion to alter The Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. BY THE COURT: KIM R. GIBSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Notice to counsel of record by ECF and by U.S. Mail to: Larry A. Hasan 209 Library Court Duquesne, PA 15110 2 the

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?