From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Beard

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 15, 2011
CIVIL NO. 3:CV-07-2266 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2011)

Summary

holding that the record clearly indicated that the officers arrived at plaintiff's cell after the incident, and as such, could not have intervened

Summary of this case from Whitehead v. Rozum

Opinion

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-07-2266.

March 15, 2011


ORDER


AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2011, upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (doc. 203), filed February 11, 2011, to which no objections were filed, and upon independent review of the record, it is ordered that:

1. The magistrate judge's report is adopted.
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. 166) is granted.
3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants' Gardner, Lalli, Boal, Dickson, Mitchell, Lawler, House, Whitsel, Yedlosky, Edwards, Culbert, and Stever, and against plaintiff Willie Lamar Young.
4. This case shall proceed to trial on plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendants Eberling, Goodman, Grove and Paige.
5. An appropriate scheduling order will follow.


Summaries of

Young v. Beard

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 15, 2011
CIVIL NO. 3:CV-07-2266 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2011)

holding that the record clearly indicated that the officers arrived at plaintiff's cell after the incident, and as such, could not have intervened

Summary of this case from Whitehead v. Rozum
Case details for

Young v. Beard

Case Details

Full title:WILLIE LAMAR YOUNG, JR., Plaintiff v. JEFFERY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2011

Citations

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-07-2266 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2011)

Citing Cases

Whitehead v. Rozum

Thus, there is no evidence that suggests that Hayward even saw what happened let alone had a reasonable and…