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.

Carpenter v. Kloptoski

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


February 26, 2010

PHILIP CARPENTER, PLAINTIFF
v.
SUPERINTENDENT KLOPTOSKI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge

(Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2010, upon consideration of the motion to dismiss (Doc. 79) plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 39), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)*fn1 , filed on behalf of defendant Crawford Manufacturing Corporation ("Crawford"), and it appearing that plaintiff has failed to file a brief in opposition to the motion in accordance with local rules of court, see L.R. 7.6, and that plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion indicates abandonment of the claims against Crawford, see D'Angio v. Borough of Nescopeck, 34 F. Supp. 2d, 256, 265 (M.D. Pa. 1999) (noting that abandonment of a position is tantamount to waiver), see also, Ober v. Miller, No. 1:04-CV-1669, 2007 WL 4443256 , at *14 (M.D.Pa. Dec. 18, 2007) (finding that plaintiff's failure to oppose defendants' motion for summary judgment on his equal protection claim resulted in abandonment of the claim), it is hereby ORDERED that Crawford's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 79) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is DEEMED unopposed, see L.R. 7.6, and GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE Crawford as a named defendant.


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.