Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-1068 - JOHNSON v. FALOTICO et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-1068 - JOHNSON v. FALOTICO et al
September 1, 2016
PDF | More
For the reasons stated in the Order filed herewith, Plaintiff's "Notice to the Court" 7 seeking reconsideration of the Court's Order denying his "Motion for Special Allowance" is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 9/1/2016. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Maryland Division of Correction Inmate Handbook) (rld)
May 11, 2017
PDF | More
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that the 32 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by CITY OF PITTSBURGH, 24 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by ALEXANDER VISNICH, SGT. JOHN DOE, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, SARA FALOTICO, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER JOHN DOE be granted in part and denied in part. Objections to R&R due by 5/30/2017. Responses to Objections due 6/16/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 5/10/2017. (ajt) (Entered: 05/11/2017) Modified on 5/11/2017 to add additional docket text. (ksa)
June 5, 2017
PDF | More
Plaintiff's request that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is denied. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated May 11, 2017 (Doc. 42), hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 6/5/2017. (kg) THIS ORDER VACATED per 45 Text-only entry Order dated 6/8/2017. Modified on 7/5/2017. (jsp)MEMORANDUM ORDER. Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docs. 24 and 32) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment and First Amendment claims against the City of Pittsburgh, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pittsburgh Police Department are dismissed without prejudice; (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against Officer Falarico, Officer Visnich, Officers John Doe 1 and 2 for their conduct in relation to Plaintiff's investigative detention is denied; (3) Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against Officer Falarico, Officer Visnich, Officers John Doe 1 and 2 for their conduct in relation to seizing his personal property at the scene of his arrest are dismissed with prejudice; (4) Plaintiff's access to the courts claims against Officer Falarico, Officer Visnich, Officers John Doe 1 and 2 are dismissed with prejudice; (5) Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's punitive damages claims is denied; (6) Defendants' motion to dismiss any official capacity suits against the individual officers is granted; and (7) The University Defendants' motion to strike specific dollar amounts of unliquidated damages and Plaintiff's "Statement to the Court No Confidence" is granted and the specific dollar amounts of unliquidated damages are stricken from Plaintiff's complaint and
July 5, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 42 Amended Report and Recommendation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docs. 24 and 32) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows: (1) Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment and First Amendment claims against the City of Pittsburgh, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pittsburgh Police Department are dismissed without prejudice; (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against Officer Falarico, Officer Visnich, Officers John Doe 1 and 2 for their conduct in relation to Plaintiff's investigative detention is denied; (3) Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against Officer Falarico, Officer Visnich, Officers John Doe 1 and 2 for their conduct in relation to seizing his personal property at the scene of his arrest are dismissed with prejudice; (4) Plaintiff's access to the courts claims against Officer Falarico, Officer Visnich, Officers John Doe 1 and 2 are dismissed with prejudice; (5) Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's punitive damages claims is denied; (6) Defendants' motion to dismiss any official capacity suits against the individual officers is granted; and (7) The University Defendants' motion to strike specific dollar amounts of unliquidated damages and Plaintiff's "Statement to the Court No Confidence" is granted and the specific dollar amounts of unliquidated damages are stricken from Plaintiff's complaint and Plaintiff's request that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is denied. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated May 11, 2017 (Doc. 42), hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 7/5/2017. (kg)
January 4, 2018
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 16 Complaint, filed by DAVID S. JOHNSON recommending that the court dismiss Plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the City of Pittsburgh, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pittsburgh Police Department with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 1/19/2018. Objections to R&R for Unregistered ECF Users due by 1/23/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 1/4/2018. (ajt)
January 29, 2018
PDF | More
Judge's Report and Recommendation dated January 4, 2018, hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 1/29/18. (kg)MEMORANDUM ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Order, Plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendants the City of Pittsburgh, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pittsburgh Police Department are dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants the City of Pittsburgh, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pittsburgh Police Department are terminated from this action, as no claims remain against them. The only claim that remains is Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Officers Falotico and Visnich and Officers John Does 1 and 2 for their conduct in relation to Plaintiff's investigative detention. The Magistrate