From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Asque v. Commonwealth Allegheny County

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 27, 2007
Civil Action No. 07-294 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-294.

April 27, 2007


ORDER


AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2007, after the Plaintiff, Dave Asque, filed an action in the above-captioned case, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge granting the parties ten days after being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, and Plaintiff's copy of report and recommendation having been returned to the Court by Allegheny County Jail indicating that he was released on March 13, 2007, and upon independent review of the record, and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed before service, pursuant to the authority granted courts by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if the plaintiff desires to appeal from this Order he must do so within thirty (30) days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 3, Fed.R.App.P.


Summaries of

Asque v. Commonwealth Allegheny County

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 27, 2007
Civil Action No. 07-294 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2007)
Case details for

Asque v. Commonwealth Allegheny County

Case Details

Full title:DAVE ASQUE, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH ALLEGHENY COUNTY; HEATHER KELLY…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 27, 2007

Citations

Civil Action No. 07-294 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2007)

Citing Cases

Macias v. Kaplan-Seikmann

The seventh action is a communication between counsel in the matter related to the resolution of the case,…

Lawson v. Pizza Hut

Accordingly, under Heck, Lawson's federal civil rights claims against these defendants are not cognizable…