On July 9, 2001, the plaintiffs filed the instant complaint, seeking damages for violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the common law torts of assault and battery. Oral argument was held on defendants’ ensuing motion for summary judgment on October 28, 2002, bringing the case to its present posture.
The Middle District of Pennsylvania offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to 2012, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
3:01cv1272 RINKER v. SIPLER, et al.File:
3:00-1916 SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE CO. v. MONTAGE SKI RESORT, et al.File:
This action arises out of an incident that occurred on August 27, 1995 when Ralph Sparaney was attending a concert at the Montage Ski Area. (Doc. No. 1, Exh. A, ¶ 7). While attempting to purchase a beverage at the concession stand, it appears that he was stabbed in the back with a knife, sustaining serious injuries. (Id. at ¶ 10). The court further adopts the facts as set forth by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in their decision on the underlying matter.
3:02cv2081 MEDINA v. ASHCROFTFile:
Petitioner Medina is a citizen of the Dominican Republic. (Govt. Ex. A, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, Form I-213). He entered the United States on October 18, 1985 as an imm igrant. Id. On March 12, 1999, petitioner was convicted in the Northampton County Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of possession w ith intent to deliver a controlled substance, cocaine, a felony in violation of 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). (Govt. Ex. B, Record of Conviction). The court sentenced him to a minimum of one year to a maximum of two years imprisonment, a $200.00 fine and 500 hours of community service. (Govt. Ex. B, Record of Conviction).On March 23, 1999, the INS filed a Notice To Appear (NTA) thus commencing removal proceedings against Medina. The NTA charges that Medina’s drug conviction renders him removable from the United States pursuant to the following two sections of the immigration law: 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); and 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(B)(i). (Govt. Ex. C, Notice To Appear).
3:01-CV-2371 TELESHA v. BARNHART, Commissioner of the SSAJudge:File:
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion’s Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 14), regarding Plaintiff Victor C. Telesha’s appeal of the denial of his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Appeal be denied. (Doc. 16 at 9.) Because Plaintiff has filed objections to the recommended disposition, (Doc. 15), we will make a de novo determination regarding the matters to which Plaintiff has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
After a thorough examination of the record, we conclude that the ALJ’s failure to address the disability determination of the Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System, and his incomplete review of evidence regarding both HIV Wasting Syndrome (Listing 14.08(I)) and Plaintiff’s credibility are cause for remand.
3:02-1043 SINDE v. SUSAN GERLINSKI, Warden, LSCI-AllenwoodFile:
On June 17, 2002, the petitioner, an inmate at the Low Security Correctional Institution at Allenwood, (“Allenwood”), White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenges the process provided to him at a Disciplinary Hearing Officer, (“DHO”), hearing, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence relied upon by the DHO to find him guilty. The petitioner further complains that he did not receive a hearing every thirty days while he was in segregation, and that, after his release from segregation and before the DHO hearing, his phone calls were unjustly limited to one call per week. The petitioner is seeking expungement of the institutional incident report and restoration of privileges and good conduct time credits lost as a result of the action taken against him by the DHO.
3:01-0557 WYCHUNAS v. O’TOOLE, et al.File:
By way of relevant background, on March 30, 2001, the plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the above-named defendants violated his civil right to be free from unlawful arrest and seizure, in relation to his arrest on March 30, 1999, for alleged violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device & Cosmetic Act, 35 Pa.C.S. §§780-113. The plaintiff bases his claim upon “blatant misrepresentations and significant omissions contained within Defendants’ Affidavit of Probable Cause.”
3:01cv2229 COLLINS v. TRL, INC.File:
Plaintiff has brought a sexual harassment/hostile work environment lawsuit against his former employer. Plaintiff asserts same-sex sexual harassment. He worked for the defendant as a trailer mechanic beginning on October 27, 1999. Def. Ex . A, Plaintiff’s Deposition (hereinafter “Pl. Dep.”) at 21. During his first week on the job, which was a week of training, Allen Clark served as the plaintiff ’s supervisor. Id. at 24. On the first day of the job, Plaintiff states that Clark asked him if he was a homosexual. Id. at 52. Plaintiff informed Clark that he was not. Id. at 52-54. After the initial week , the plaintiff and Clark did not work the same shift. However, there was be some overlap in the hours that they were at work . Id. at 32.
3:02-CV-0831 #2 USA v. 2001 HONDA ACCORD EX VIN #1HGCG22561A035829Judge:File:
Before the Court is the Government’s Motion for a Stay filed pursuant to Rule 8(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1355. (Doc. 31). The United States seeks an Order to Stay the Order entered on January 30, 2003 (the “January 2003 Order”). In that Order, this Court granted summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Claimant Kimberly A. Marckesano, a.k.a. Claire P. Marckesano (“Claimant” or “Marckesano”), and granted Claimant’s motion to amend the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 29). The January 2003 Order thus permitted Claimant to recover the subject of the in rem forfeiture action, a 2001 Honda Accord EX VIN# 1HGCG22561A035829 (“the Honda”). (Id.) On February 3, 2003, the United States appealed the January 2003 Order, and now requests that we stay the judgment pending the appeal in order to assure the preservation of the condition and value of the Honda. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Stay is DENIED.
1:CR-02-146 USA v. GRASS, et al.Judge:File:
On June 21, 2002, a federal grand jury sitting in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania issued a thirty-seven count indictment against Defendants, former officers and directors for the Rite Aid Corporation. In Counts 26 through 29 of the Indictment, the Government charges Defendants with four counts of wire fraud. The accusations arise out of the following actions: (1) the transfer of approximately $2.6 million from a Rite Aid account at Chase Manhattan Bank into an account belonging to CCA Associates, Inc. (“CCA”), a subsidiary of a partnership owned by Defendant Grass and his brother-in-law (Count 26); (2) the transfer of approximately $898,000 from Rite Aid to Defendant Grass as a bonus for Rite Aid’s performance during its fiscal year (“FY”) 1998 (Count 27); (3) the transfer of approximately $337,000 to Defendant Brown as a bonus for FY 1998 (Count 28); (4) the transfer of approximately $300,000 to Defendant Bergonzi as a bonus for FY 1998 (Count 29). Based on these allegations, the Government, in Count 32 of the Indictment, asserts that it is entitled to a criminal forfeiture of Defendants’ assets derived from the fruits of the alleged wire frauds. See 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A). On September 4, 2002, Defendants moved to dismiss that count pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B).
3:02-CV-2276 CARRICK v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.Judge:File:
Plaintiff Richard Carrick filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County on November 21, 2002 against Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. alleging various state law claims.1 Defendant removed the action to federal court. (Doc. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for remand to state court. (Doc. 8.) The Court heard oral arguments on February 24, 2003. This matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. Because the Court finds that Defendant has not satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied as moot.