IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 22, 2007
NICHOLAS APRIL, PLAINTIFF,
SUPERINTENDENT MARILYN BROOKS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sean J. McLAUGHLIN United States District Judge
Plaintiff's civil rights complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on March 20, 2006 and was referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and recommendation 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 Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, filed on April 13, 2007, recommended that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Brooks and Overton  be granted, that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Baker  be granted, and that Plaintiff's claims against unnamed Defendants John and Jane Doe be dismissed in their entirety due to Plaintiff's failure to identify and serve those Defendants within the time frame established by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Plaintiff filed his objections to the report and recommendation on April 26, 2007.
After de novo review of the Amended Complaint and the documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff's objections thereto, the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 22nd Day of June, 2007, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Brooks and Overton  is GRANTED and that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Baker  is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to the Plaintiff's claims against unnamed Defendants John and Jane Doe, Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days from the date of this order in which to engage in discovery for the purpose of identifying the unnamed Defendants and replead his claims against said Defendants.
The Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter  filed on April 13, 2007, is adopted, in part, as the opinion of this Court to the extent set forth herein.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.