Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PEW v. TORMA

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania


December 12, 2005.

ALFONSO PERCY PEW, Plaintiff,
v.
JOANNE TORMA, Central Office Department of Corrections Religious Accomodations Board for Special Needs; DAVE ROBERTS, Unit Manager, Bureau of Inmate Services Central Office of Department of Corrections; T'SHANNA KYLER, Department of Corrections Grievance Final Review Board; THOMAS A. FULCOMER; WILLIAM J. LOVE; JEFFERY A. BEARD, Central Office Department of Correction Secretary and Deputies; MECHLING; WILLIAM TERZA, Pittsburgh State Prison Warden and Chaplain; VICUSI, Correctional Officer 1; CULP, LIEUTENENT 2; EVANS, Correctional Officer 1; WILLIAM S. STICKMAN, Superintendent; NIXON, Correctional Officer 1; JAMES META, Food Service Supervisor; CAROL A. DEWITT; and COREY A. BISH, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: DONETTA AMBROSE, District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

The above captioned case was received by the Clerk of Court on November 12, 2003, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Francis X. Caiazza in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. The case was transferred to Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on April 12, 2004.

The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 87), filed on November 4, 2005, recommended that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 77) be granted as to all Defendants on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment pork substitute claim. Service was made on the Plaintiff at S.C.I. Fayette, P.O. Box 9999, LaBelle, PA 15450-0999 and and on counsel for the Defendants. The parties were advised that in accordance with the Magistrate's Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.1.4 (B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, they were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written objections to this report, and that any party opposing the objections were allowed seven (7) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Plaintiff filed Objections to Magistrate Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 88) on November 15, 2005. No response to the objection has been filed. After review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the report and recommendation and objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 12th day of December, 2005;
  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 87) is GRANTED as to all Defendants on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment pork substitute claim.

  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated November 4, 2005, is adopted as the opinion of the court.

20051212

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.