IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 29, 2006
MICHAEL MALIK ALLAH, PLAINTIFF,
LOUIS FOLINO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joy Flowers Conti United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2006, after the plaintiff, Michael Malik Allah, filed a civil rights complaint in the above-captioned case, and after a partial motion to dismiss the complaint was submitted by defendants Folino, B. Martin, J. Martin, Lockett, Gaynon, Mitchell, Norman, Williams, D'Eletto, Ansell, Henry, Tanner, Stump, Hayward, Davis, Coy, Saunders, Armstrong, Anderson, Hall, Leggett, Kirby, Schamp, Gifford, Mears, Moneck, Sebek, Blaker, Manchas, King, Noak, Higgins, Bowlin, Day, Workman, Baw, Geehring, Conner, Bruno, Cindy LNU, Vihidal, Esmond, and the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (hereinafter, the "Department of Corrections' defendants"), and after a Report and Recommendation was issued by the United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties were granted a time period after being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, and no objections having been filed, and upon independent review of the pleadings, and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,
IT IS ORDERED that the partial motion to dismiss filed by the Department of Corrections' defendants (Docket No. 139) is granted as to all claims asserted against defendants Pennsylvania Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, Folino, D'Eletto, Ansell, Davis, Mears, Day, Baw, Bruno, Esmond, Lockett, Williams, Manchas, Workmen, Vihidal, Anderson and Kirby; is granted as to all claims regarding the failure of the prison authorities to recognize the plaintiff's use of his non-committed name; is granted as to the plaintiff's First Amendment claims of denial of access to the courts; is granted as to the plaintiff's common law tort claims which are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; and is denied as to the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims arising from injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of the defendants' refusal to permit him to wear sunglasses in the institution and to the extent he was subjected to institutional discipline in retaliation for his litigious conduct.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.