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.

Black v. Allegheny County

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

May 7, 2015

DEBRA BLACK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO STRIKE (ECF NOS. 267, 271) THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS (ECF NOS. 266, 270)

CYNTHIA REED EDDY, Magistrate Judge.

On May 4, 2015, the Medical Defendants filed Objections (ECF No. 271) to the Court's Order denying their motion to consolidate the above-captioned matter ("Black I") and the related case, Black v. Youngue, Civ. No. 14-505 ("Black II"), which is assigned to Judge Cercone. In these Objections, the Medical Defendants agree that the undersigned did not have the authority to consolidate the cases in light of the election of the District Judge Option in Black II and agree that only Judge Cercone had the authority to consolidate the cases. But for some inexplicable reason, the Medical Defendants filed these Objections on this docket just hours after Judge Cercone denied their request to consolidate the cases in Black II.[1] The Medical Defendants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), state that they "are filing Objections to preserve their objections to the remainder of the Magistrate Judge's Order, " (ECF No. 266 at 3), which found that even if the court had jurisdiction to consolidate the cases, the motion would nonetheless be denied. (ECF No. 251).

However, as recently explained by this Court in a Memorandum Order dated April 24, 2015, "to the extent that the Medical Defendants are attempting to appeal this Order to a District Judge, that attempt is invalid" because the undersigned has had full consent in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) since August 21, 2014. (ECF No. 255). The same holds true here. There is no basis for the Medical Defendants to file these unsolicited Objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiffs correctly note that the Objections are "procedurally improper, inappropriate and inefficient." (Pl.'s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Strike at 3, ECF No. 3). Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to strike (ECF No. 267) the Medical Defendants Objections dated May 4, 2015 (ECF No. 266).

On May 5, 2015, the Medical Defendants filed another set of Objections (ECF No. 270) pertaining to the denial of the Medical Defendants' motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 255). In these Objections, the Medical Defendants once again ignore the fact that the undersigned has full consent in this case and that there is not a District Judge assigned to it. Therefore, their attempt to appeal this Order to a District Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) is unwarranted and procedurally unfounded. Consequently, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to strike (ECF No. 271) the Medical Defendants' Objections dated May 5, 2015 (ECF No. 266).

AND NOW, this 7th day of May, 2015, in accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 267) the Objections dated May 4, 2015 (ECF No. 266) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 271) the Objections dated May 5, 2015 (ECF No. 270) is GRANTED.


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.