From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 4, 2008
Civil Action No. 07-40J (W.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2008)

Summary

allowing claims against defendants in their official capacities under the Rehabilitation Act to proceed

Summary of this case from Spencer v. Courtier

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-40J.

January 4, 2008


ORDER


AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2008, after the Plaintiff, Charles Scott Thomas, filed an action in the above-captioned case, and after the Commonwealth Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, 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 no objections having been filed, and upon independent review of the record and the motion, 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 Commonwealth Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [15] is denied.

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

Thomas v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 4, 2008
Civil Action No. 07-40J (W.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2008)

allowing claims against defendants in their official capacities under the Rehabilitation Act to proceed

Summary of this case from Spencer v. Courtier
Case details for

Thomas v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES SCOTT THOMAS, Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIA DEP'T OF CORR.; CUTSHALL…

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

Date published: Jan 4, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 07-40J (W.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2008)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Dkt. [25] at 12 to 13. Defendant Cutshall is incorrect. Even though an individual defendant may not be liable…

Talley v. Gilmore

As to the ADA claim, Defendant argues that the claim should be dismissed because there is no individual…