GUISEPPE v. MCFADDEN et al, No. 2:2017cv04880 - Document 16 (E.D. Pa. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 11) IS GRANTED AND THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE A PERIOD OF TWENTY-ONE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WHICH ADDRESSES THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED WITH THE COMPLAINT AS EXPLAINED IN THE MEMORANDUM OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 3/12/18. 3/12/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED.(ky, )

Download PDF
GUISEPPE v. MCFADDEN et al Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GUISEPPE, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN MCFADDEN, DEPUTY WARDEN REED, JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-4880 ORDER AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2018, the defendants, Warden McFadden, Deputy Warden Reed, and John Does 1-10, having filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) seeking to have the court dismiss the complaint filed by the pro se plaintiff, Christopher Michael Guiseppe; and after considering the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11), the complaint (Doc. No. 6), and the plaintiff’s response in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 14); and for the reasons set forth in the separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 2. The plaintiff shall have a period of twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint which addresses the issues identified with the complaint as explained in the memorandum opinion; and Dockets.Justia.com 3. If the plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with paragraph two of this order, the court may dismiss this action with prejudice for his failure to prosecute. BY THE COURT: /s/ Edward G. Smith EDWARD G. SMITH, J. 2

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.