Legal Opinion
Nottingham v. Peoria
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided November 1, 1988No. Civ. 88-0428PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NEALON, Chief Judge.
Currently before the court are plaintiff’s motion to supplement his complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d), see document 21 of record, defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, see document 15 of record, and defendants motion for a protective order to stay discovery pending decision on their dispositive motion. For reasons that follow, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to supplement his complaint, will grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and will dismiss defendants’ motion for protective order as moot.
B…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Rhodes v. ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Caldwell v. Luzerne County Corrections Facility Management EmployeesDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- Commonwealth v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Scottish Air International, Inc. v. British Caledonian Group, PLC.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- County of Dauphin v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- Kahn v. General Motors Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1994
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.