-FXC YUNIK v. MCVEY et al, No. 2:2008cv01706 - Document 88 (W.D. Pa. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 87 Plaintiff's "objections", construed as a motion for reconsideration.. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 12/2/2010. (jlh )

Download PDF
-FXC YUNIK v. MCVEY et al Doc. 88 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAY V. YUNIK, Plaintiff ) ) ) vs. ) ) CATHERINE C. McVEY, ) Chairperson - Pennsylvania Board of ) Probation and Parole; MICHAEL L. ) GREEN, Member - Pennsylvania Board of ) Probation and Parole; JEFFREY R. ) IMBODEN, Member - Pennsylvania Board ) of Probation and Parole; MATTHEW T. ) MANGINO, Member - Pennsylvania Board ) of Probation and Parole; BENJAMIN A. ) MARTINEZ, Member - Pennsylvania ) Board of Probation and Parole; GERALD ) N. MASSARO, Member - Pennsylvania ) Board of Probation and Parole; MICHAEL ) M. WEBSTER, Member - Probation and ) ) Parole; LLOYD A. WHITE, Member Pennsylvania Board of Probation and ) Parole; ALL JOHN DOE'S AND JANES ) DOE'S, Member- Pennsylvania Board of ) ) Probation and Parole; DR. JEFFREY A BEARD, Secretary - Pennsylvania ) Department ofCorrections; JOHN S. ) SHAFFER, Executive Deputy Secretary - ) Pennsylvania Department ofCorrections; ) JUDITH VIGLIONE, Director - Bureau ) ofInmates Service - Pennsylvania ) Department of Corrections; MS. SNYDER, ) Parole Agent - S.CT Mercer; MICHAEL ) W. HARLOW, Superintendent, S.C.r. ) Mercer; FRED 1. RUFFO, Official S.c.I. ) Mercer; MR. MAHLMEMISTER, Deputy ) Superintendent S.c.!. Mercer; MS. ) BAKER, Officer - S.c.!. Mercer; ) WILLIAM (BILL) WOODS, Unit Manager-) S.c.I. Mercer; MRS. KING - Unit Manager -) S.C.I. Mercer; LT. COON, S.CJ. Mercer; ) Civil Action No. 08- J706 Judge Donetta W. Ambrose! Magistrate Judge Francis X. Caiazza Dockets.Justia.com JODI STEVENS, Counselor, S.C.I. Mercer; LT. WILLIAMSON, S.C.t Mercer; MR CHAMBERLAIN, Parole Agent, S.CL Mercer; THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR, Attorney General of Pennsylvania; ALL JOHN DOE'S A."'ID JANE DOE'S Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; ALL ATTORJ-lEY'S WORKING FOR ANY AND ALL CITY, COUNTY'S OR STATE OF PENNSYLV A."IIA; ALL FEDERAL ATTORNEY'S WORKING FOR ANY AND ALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) re: ECF No. 87 MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDQRDER Plaintiff Yunik has filed "objections" (ECF No. 87) to an order entered by the undersigned that granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Because objections are not properly filed to an order entered by a District Judge, the Court wiIJ liberally construe Plaintiff's objections as a motion for reconsideration. Construed as such, it will be denied. "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fuct or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906,909 (3d Cif. 1985). "The standard plaintiff must meet to prevail on a motion for reconsideration is high[.]" Berry v. Jacobs !MC, LLC, 99 F.App'x 405, 410 (3d Cif. 2004). In order to merit the grant of a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must establish: "( I ) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error oflaw or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." M:ax's Seafood Cafe ex reI. Lou-Ann, Inc. y. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). After considering Plaintiff's arguments, Plaintiff fails to meet the high 2 standards for meriting the grant of a motion for reconsideration, Accordingly, the following order V is entered: AND NOW, day of December 2010, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's "objections", construed as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED, Donetta W, Ambrose U,S. District Judge Dated: cc: The Honorable Francis X. Caiazza Recalled United States Magistrate Judge Jay V, Yunik EK·5560 SCI Fayette Box 9999 LaBelle, PA \5450-0999 All counsel of record via CM·ECF 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.