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.

Walter Ransome v. Vincent Mooney and Michael P.

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


December 2, 2010

WALTER RANSOME,
PLAINTIFF
v.
VINCENT MOONEY AND MICHAEL P. GOYNE,
DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: s/Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

: (Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Ransome seeks to have this court give further consideration to his claims of discrimination, bias, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and failure to provide medical care.

The November 10, 2010 order issued by this court adopted the October 1, 2010, report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. That report addressed the second amended complaint filed by Plaintiff, which involved claims of retaliatory transfer within the prison.

Plaintiff's original complaint, which included allegations of Eighth Amendment violations, was dismissed with leave to amend, as recommended by the magistrate judge. An amended complaint was filed but this complaint was also fatally flawed. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the amended complaint except that portion of the amended complaint that attempted to allege a retaliation claim. That claim was dismissed without prejudice to file another amended complaint setting forth a well-pleaded, viable retaliation claim. On July 8, 2010, Ransome filed a document styled "Claim of Official Retaliation" which was construed as a second amended complaint. (Doc. 76.) Thus, the only issue addressed in the October 1, 2010, report and recommendation and the issue addressed in the court's order dated November 10, 2010, was a retaliation claim.

An "amended complaint must be complete in all respects. It must be a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to the complaint already filed." Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot now seek to raise issues in a dismissed complaint that were not subsequently raised in an amended complaint.

An appropriate order will be issued.

CIVIL NO. 1:09-CV-0604

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

WALTER RANSOME, Plaintiff v. VINCENT MOONEY and MICHAEL P. GOYNE, :: Defendants

: (Judge Rambo) :: (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

ORDER

In accordance with the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion to alter or amend the judgment (doc. 88) is DENIED

s/Sylvia H. Rambo

United States District Judge

Dated: December 2, 2010.

20101202

© 1992-2010 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.