Barron v. Pallito et al
Filing
91
ORDER: 90 Second Motion for Final Judgment DENIED. Dfts Pallito, Stone, Porter, Barriere and Jenkins to answer 61 Second Amended Complaint not later than 12/9/2011. Claims against dfts Ballard and MHMI DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by District Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 11/18/2011. (kak)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
DAVID WAYNE BARRON,
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
v.
:
:
ANDREW PALLITO, PRISON HEALTH :
SERVICES, INC., DR. DELORES
:
BURROUGHS-BIRON, DR. BALLARD, :
DR. GARRY WEISCHEDEL, RANDY
:
PORTER, THERESA STONE, KEVIN
:
JENKINS, JODI BARRIERE and
:
MENTAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT,
:
INC.,
:
Defendants.
:
Docket No. 1:09-cv-209-jgm
ORDER
Pursuant to the Amended Order (Doc. 87) adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Dr. Ballard
and Mental Health Management, Inc. (“MHMI”) was granted and Plaintiff was
granted leave to replead his claims against them within 30 days. Plaintiff has not
filed an amended complaint as to these Defendants; therefore, the claims are
hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
Construing the Second Motion for Final Judgment filed by Defendants
Ballard and MHMI (Doc. 90) as one filed under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the motion is DENIED. A final judgment will be entered when all
claims and all parties’ rights and liabilities have been adjudicated.
Defendants Andrew Pallito, in his official capacity, Theresa Stone, Randy
Porter, Jodi Barriere and Kevin Jenkins were directed to answer the Second
Amended Complaint within 20 days. It is hereby ORDERED that an answer shall
be filed not later than December 9, 2011. If they fail to do so, default will be
entered against them, upon motion from the Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Brattleboro, in the District of Vermont, this 18th day of November,
2011.
/s/ J. Garvan Murtha
Honorable J. Garvan Murtha
United States District 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?