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.

John K. Whiteford v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

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


September 17, 2012

JOHN K. WHITEFORD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, MUNICIPALITY OF PENN HILLS, ANTHONY DELUCA, HOWARD DAVIDSON, M. LETTRICH, ESQ., MEYER, DARRAGH, BEBENEK, ECK, ET AL.,
B. BRIMMEIER, ESQ.,
A. SWEENEY, ESQ., A. RACUNAS, ESQ., A.J. ZANGRILLI, JR., ESQ., C.C. COLIN, ESQ., YUKEVICH, MARCHETTI, LIEKAR & ZANGRILLI P.C., P. MCGRAIL, ESQ., ISOBEL STORCH, ESQ., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti United States District Judge

District Judge Conti Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan

Re: ECF Nos. 10, 12, 38, 40, 42 43, 44, 51, 63

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff John K. Whiteford ("plaintiff") filed his complaint on January 17, 2012 and this case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.C and 72.D of the Local Rules of Court.

The magistrate judge=s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 63) filed on August 13, 2012, recommended that are all the defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (6) be granted with prejudice because, among other things, all the claims asserted by plaintiff are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Service was made on all counsel of record and pro seplaintiff. The parties were informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local Rule of Court 72.D.2, the parties had fourteen days from the date of service to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Plaintiff filed objections entitled "Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision," and "First Addendum in Support of Appeal." (ECF Nos. 64 - 65.) Plaintiff's objections do not address the conclusions in the Report and Recommendation that his claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court notes plaintiff attached a summary to his objections which reflects the latest date for a prosecution against him occurred in 2007. (ECF No. 64 at 7.) Since there is a two-year statute of limitations applicable to the claims asserted by plaintiff, the instant claims filed in 2012 are time-barred. The court finds the rationale set forth in the Report and Recommendation with respect to the statute of limitations is persuasive and remains undisputed.

After review of the pleadings, documents in the case and the objections, together with the Report and Recommendation, the court finds the applicable statute of limitations bars plaintiff's claims and the following Order is entered:

AND NOW, this 17th day of September, 2012,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 10, 12, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, and 51) filed by the Defendants in the above-captioned case are GRANTED with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 63) of Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated August 13, 2012, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.

The clerk shall mark the case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT

Joy Flowers Conti

cc: All counsel of record

Via Electronic Mail John K. Whiteford 1188 Hamil Road Verona, PA 15147 PRO SE

20120917

© 1992-2012 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.