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.

Vega v. Pocono Regional Police Department

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

June 12, 2014

DAVID VEGA Plaintiff,
v.
POCONO REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. Defendants.

ORDER

ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge.

AND NOW, THIS 12th DAY OF JUNE 2014, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Schwab's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10), Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1), and Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 11), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 11) are OVERRULED.
2. Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART; to wit:
a. The Pocono Regional Police Department, Monroe County Correctional Facility, and Monroe County Department of Probation and Parole are not considered to be "persons" under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, and even if the Court were to interpret Plaintiffs claims to include a municipality or government entity, Plaintiff has failed to allege any policy, regulation, or custom by such municipality or entity that resulted in a violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Plaintiffs Complaint is therefore dismissed pursuant to the reasons discussed in the Report and Recommendation.
b. However, Plaintiff will be permitted to amend his Complaint. Should he choose to do so, the Complaint must:
i. (1) Identify amunicipality or governmental entity (for example, a city, county, or borough); (2) identify a specific policy, regulation, or custom of the named entity; and (3) identify the specific harm that he sustained as a result of the entity's policy, regulation, or custom; and/or
ii. (1) Identify one or more individuals who, acting in their individual or personal capacity, he believes violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (3) state the actions, omissions, or other conduct which Plaintiff alleges the individuals he identifies engaged in that caused the alleged violation of his rights.
4. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order.
5. Plaintiff is placed on notice that it will not be sufficient to re-allege the same claims from his previous case, Vega v. Dunlap, 3:12-CV-1767 (M.D. Pa), which were the subject of Magistrate Judge Blewitt's Report and Recommendation, adopted by Judge Conaboy.
6. The case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Schwab for further proceedings consistent with this Order.

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.