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.

Migliore v. Ackerman

United States District Court, Third Circuit

August 12, 2013

RICHARD W. MIGLIORE, J.D. Plaintiff,
v.
ARLENE ACKERMAN, Superintendent; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, THE SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION; and, COMMISIONERS ROBERT L. ARCHIE., JR., ESQUIRE, Chairman, DENISE McGREGOR ARMBRISTER, JOSEPH A. DWORETZKY, ESQUIRE, and JOHNNY IRIZARRY; LUCY FERIA, Regional Superintendent; JAMES DOUGLASS, Assistant Regional Superintendent; ESTELLE G. MATTHEWS, Chief Talent Development Officer; ANDREW ROSEN, ESQUIRE, Human Resources Representative; and MARY SANDRA DEAN, Principal. Defendants.

ORDER

JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 18, filed September 17, 2012), Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 22, filed November 9, 2012), Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 20, filed October 19, 2012), and Plaintiff's Answer in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 23, filed November 12, 2012), Letter from Defense Counsel dated June 20, 2013 (Document No. 26, filed June 20, 2013), Joint Report of All Parties in Response to the Court's Order Dated July 1, 2013 (Document No. 28, filed July 15, 2013), Letter from Defense Counsel dated July 31, 2013 (Document No. 29, filed July 31, 2013), and Letter from Plaintiff's Counsel dated August 1, 2013, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated August 12, 2013, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. With respect to Migliore's neglect to prevent claim under 42 U.S.C. ยง1986, which claim he states he is not pursuing, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

2. With respect to Migliore's claim that he was retaliated against because of the Book and speeches in violation of his First Amendment rights, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment are each DENIED.

3. With respect to Migliore's claim that he was retaliated against because of his grievance and complaint in violation of his First Amendment rights, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

4. With respect to Migliore's claim that he was retaliated against because of his leadership beliefs, research-based practices, or associations and friendships with teachers in violation of his First Amendment rights, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

5. With respect to Milgiore's due process claim, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

6. With respect to Migliore's claims asserted against the School District of Philadelphia and the School Reform Commission, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a scheduling conference by telephone will be conducted due course.


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.