AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

CHARLES SCOTT THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEP'T OF CORR.; CUTSHALL; OFFICER EVERHART; GREENLEAF; OFFICER HARPSTER; SUPERINTENDENT GEORGE PATRICK; REGIONAL DEPUTY SECRETARY WILLIAM STICKMAN; YOUNKIN; JOHN DOES, in their indi

ORDER

KIM GIBSON, District Judge

AND NOW, this 12th day of May, 2009, after plaintiff, Charles Scott Thomas, filed an action in the above-captioned case, and after defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge granting the parties until May 11, 2009 to file written objections thereto, and upon consideration of the objections filed by plaintiff, and upon independent review of the record and the motion, and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 73] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if the parties desire to appeal from this Order they must do so within thirty (30) days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 3, Fed.R.App.P.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

THOMAS v. PENNSYLVANIA DEP'T OF CORR
(May 12, 2009)