From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Machesky v. Chief Hawfield

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 4, 2008
Civil Action No. 07-9 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-9.

March 4, 2008


ORDER


AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 2008, after the plaintiff, Brian Machesky, filed an action in the above-captioned case, and after a Motion For a More Definite Statement was filed by defendants, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge granting the parties time to file written objections thereto, and upon consideration of the objections filed by plaintiff, 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 Motion For a More Definite Statement [Doc. 32], construed as a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, is granted with prejudice as to all federal claims, with the exception of the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim — including the allegations of municipal liability — based on the alleged deprivation of his liberty interest in pursuing a career in law enforcement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, but reserves the right to decline jurisdiction should the Plaintiff be unable adequately to support his federal claim at summary judgment.

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


Summaries of

Machesky v. Chief Hawfield

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 4, 2008
Civil Action No. 07-9 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2008)
Case details for

Machesky v. Chief Hawfield

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN MACHESKY, Plaintiff, v. CHIEF HAWFIELD; LIEUTENANT BATES; WAYNESBURG…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 07-9 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2008)

Citing Cases

Veggian v. Camden Bd. of Educ

The "plus" prong may also be satisfied where the plaintiff shows that the stigma imposed by the defendants'…

Van v. Borough of North Haledon

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff cannot allege or substantiate a claim based on any property interest…