ANDERSON v. FOLINO et al, No. 2:2010cv00937 - Document 107 (W.D. Pa. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 103 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections and confirming 101 MEMORANDUM ORDER, granting 88 Motion for Summary Judgment and 91 Motion for Summary Judgment and adopting 100 Report and Recommendation as th e opinion of the Court, and 102 ORDER entering FINAL JUDGMENT; 105 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is denied; Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 3/11/13. (map)

Download PDF

ANDERSON v. FOLINO et al Doc. 107 IN THE UNITED STptTES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KEITH ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS FOLINO, et ai., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 10-937 Chief District Judge Gary L. Lancaster! Cynthia Reed Eddy Magistrate MEMORANDUM ORDER The above captioned case was initiat<::d by the filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.1) on July 15, 2010, 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. On January 23, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 100) recommending that the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (ECF Nos. 88 and 91) both be granted. Plaintiff was served with the Report and Recommendation at his address of record and was advised that he had until February 11, 2013 to file written obj ections to the Report and Recommendation. No obje,;tions were filed within the requisite time period. Consequently, on February 16, 2013, I entered an Order granting the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (ECF Nos. 88 and 91), adopted the Report and Recommendation, closing the case (ECF No. 101) and granted judgment to Defendants in this action (ECF No. 102). 1 Dockets.Justia.com On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections (ECF No. 103) and on February 25, 2013, :filed written Objections (ECF No. 104). These objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, after a second de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and the recently-filed objections thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this day of March, 2013, that Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections (ECF No.1 03) is GR.ANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Memorandum Order (ECF No. 101) and Judgment Order (ECF No. 102) are CONFIRMED. Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 88 and 91) are granted and the Report and Recommendation (ECF. No. 100), dated January 23,2013, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pkintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 105) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a) (1 ) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. ,C.J. Gary L. Lancaster, Chief United States District Judge 2 cc: Hon. Cynthia Reed Eddy, United States Magistrate Judge Keith Anderson, AS-32S2 SCI-Rockview BoxA Bellefonte, PA 16823-0820 All Counsel of Record 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.