From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Naylor

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 26, 2006
CA 04-1826 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2006)

Opinion

CA 04-1826.

April 26, 2006


MEMORANDUM ORDER


The Plaintiff's complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on November 11, 2004, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Francis X. Caiazza for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on April 6, 2006, recommended that the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff Edward L. Taylor be dismissed because his Fourth Amendment claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a an adequate post-deprivation remedy with respect to his Fourteenth Amendment claim.

The parties were allowed ten days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on the Plaintiff by First Class United States Mail delivered to the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, Frackville, Pennsylvania, where he is incarcerated and on the Defendant. No objections have been filed. After review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2006,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff Edward L. Taylor is dismissed.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Caiazza, (Doc. 30), dated April 6, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the court.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Naylor

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 26, 2006
CA 04-1826 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2006)
Case details for

Taylor v. Naylor

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. TODD E. NAYLOR, Defendant

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

Date published: Apr 26, 2006

Citations

CA 04-1826 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2006)

Citing Cases

Pinkney v. Meadville

Frum is also correct that the adequacy of this post-deprivation remedy precludes a procedural due process…

Willard v. Pennsylvania Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Furthermore, courts have consistently held that Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 588 provides an…