Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

[U] Crock v. Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 19, 2014



Appeal from the Order September 6, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): AR-12-2843




Appellant, Thomas Crock, appeals pro se from the order entered September 6, 2012, by the Honorable R. Stanton Wettick, Jr., Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which entered summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Library Board, Management, and Staff (collectively, "Carnegie Library"). We affirm.

The relevant facts of this case are not in dispute. Crock filed a pro se complaint seeking damages based on allegations that his continued denial of access to Carnegie Library is wrongful.[1] By letter dated April 2, 2008, Carnegie Library advised Crock that he was banned from using Carnegie Library's facilities and materials for one year based on a continued disregard of library policies. Specifically, the letter stated that "[t]he reasons for this ban are a consistent pattern over several years of challenging, belligerent and abusive behavior toward staff, a disregard to library policies, including observing closing times, and repeated demands for fine waivers and other exceptions to library rules." The letter further stated that upon the expiration of the ban, Crock must request reinstatement in writing and meet with the library's security manager to review the library's policies.

On July 25, 2012, Carnegie Library filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the trial court granted on September 6, 2012. This appeal followed.

We review a challenge to the entry of summary judgment as follows:
[We] may disturb the order of the trial court only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. As with all questions of law, our review is plenary.
In evaluating the trial court's decision to enter summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated in the summary judgment rule. See Pa.R.C.P., Rule 1035.2. The rule states that where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, summary judgment may be entered. Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on an issue, he may not merely rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive summary judgment. Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Lastly, we will review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.

E.R. Linde Const. Corp. v. Goodwin, 68 A.3d 346, 349 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

With our standard of review in mind, and after examining the briefs of the parties, the ruling of the trial court, as well as the applicable law, we find that Judge Wettick's ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Wettick's memorandum opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 9/6/12.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

(Image Omitted).

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.