From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Young

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 23, 2009
2:08cv681, Electronic Filing (W.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2009)

Opinion

2:08cv681, Electronic Filing.

April 23, 2009


ORDER


AND NOW, this 23 day of April, 2009, after the Plaintiff, Harold J. Young, Sr., filed an action in the above-captioned case, and after Defendant Merck filed a Motion to Dismiss and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge giving the plaintiff until April 9, 2009 to file written objections thereto, and plaintiff having filed objections to the report and recommendation which are without merit and Defendant having filed a response to the objections, 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 to dismiss filed by Merck Co., Inc. Is granted and that the Complaint is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

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


Summaries of

Young v. Young

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 23, 2009
2:08cv681, Electronic Filing (W.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2009)
Case details for

Young v. Young

Case Details

Full title:HAROLD J. YOUNG, SR., Plaintiff v. EDITH YOUNG, WIFE; MERCK CO. INC., et…

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

Date published: Apr 23, 2009

Citations

2:08cv681, Electronic Filing (W.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2009)

Citing Cases

Hooten v. Greggo Ferrara Company

Though Hooten enjoys some latitude because he is proceeding without counsel, he may not file frivolous…

Cooper v. Records

In addition, Plaintiff further alleges that because the Defendant conducts business "out of town," it could…