From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rearick v. Wiedemer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 6, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-cv-624 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2012)

Summary

finding that state employer did not burden employee's Second Amendment rights by questioning her about her conceal and carry gun permit

Summary of this case from Zimmer v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-cv-624

08-06-2012

DEBORAH REARICK, Plaintiff, v. SUSAN J. WIEDEMER, and ROBERT MANEY, Defendants.


(JUDGE CAPUTO)


ORDER

NOW, this 6th day of August, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ths Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 58) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case as CLOSED.

________________

A. Richard Caputo

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rearick v. Wiedemer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 6, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-cv-624 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2012)

finding that state employer did not burden employee's Second Amendment rights by questioning her about her conceal and carry gun permit

Summary of this case from Zimmer v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency
Case details for

Rearick v. Wiedemer

Case Details

Full title:DEBORAH REARICK, Plaintiff, v. SUSAN J. WIEDEMER, and ROBERT MANEY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Aug 6, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-cv-624 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2012)

Citing Cases

Zimmer v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency

Importantly, Plaintiffs do not allege in any way that Ms. Marchese threatened to confiscate Plaintiffs'…