NEEDHAM v. MULLEN et al, No. 2:2013cv01829 - Document 61 (W.D. Pa. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 42 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 58 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 42 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by ALLEGHENY COUNTY. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation which recommends that the Partial Motion to Dismiss be granted is hereby adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 9/25/2014. (cag)

Download PDF
NEEDHAM v. MULLEN et al Doc. 61 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMY NEEDHAM, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM P. MULLEN, Sheriff Of Allegheny County, LIEUTENANT JOHN KEARNEY, DETECTIVE JARED KULIK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 13-1829 District Judge Cohill Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan ECF No. 42, 58 MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff filed her Complaint on December 30,2013. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint was referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(l), and Rules n.c and n.D of the Local Rules of Court. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 58) filed on August 28, 2014, recommended that the Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Allegheny County (ECF No. 42) be granted. Service was made on all counsel of record. The parties were informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(B) and (C), and Local Rule of Court n.D .2, the parties had fourteen (14) days from the date of service to tile objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections were filed. The Court notes that Allegheny County's Partial Motion to Dismiss at ECF No. 42 concerns only whether Plaintiff: as Dockets.Justia.com a matter of law, may state a claim for violation of the special relationship theory in addition to a Fourteenth Amendment claim. Defendant Allegheny County has not moved to dismiss any other aspect of Count III of the Second Amended Complaint at ECF No. 40. After review of the pleadings, the documents in the case and objections, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered: AND NOW, this Ｌｾ ... t.;;; day of September, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED that the Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by Allegheny County (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 58) of Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated August 28, 2014, is adoptcd as the Opinion of the Court. BY THE COURT ï½¾ï¼¡ï½ ï¼®ï¼¦ï½£ï¼­ cc: All counsel of record Via Electronic Mail 2 MAURICE B. COHILL United States District Judge

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.