Dennison v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
MUNLEY, District Judge.
Before the Court for disposition is defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is Kerry Dennison. Defendants are the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, SCI-Ma-hanoy, 1 (“SCI-Mahoney”), Michael R. Youron, Martin L. Dragovich, Thomas P. Kowalsky, James Unell, and Ed Klem. Defendants’ motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, we will grant defendants’ motion in part and deny it in part.
I. Background
Plaintiff Kerry Dennison began working at…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Mitchell v. MillerDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
- Boone v. Pennsylvania Office of Vocational RehabilitationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
- Bradshaw v. Township of MiddletownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2003
- Keim v. County of BucksDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
- Bradley v. West Chester University of the Pennsylvania State System Higher EducationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.