Summary
Noting that by failing to respond to an issue in her brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, the plaintiff had apparently conceded the issue
Summary of this case from Landis v. US Airways, Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-1331.
May 26, 2006
ORDER
The above captioned case was filed on September 23, 2005, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan 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 (Doc. No. 15), filed on April 4, 2006, recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) be granted as to (a) Plaintiff's request for punitive damages under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa.C.S.A. § 1421, and (b) Plaintiffs claims against the individual Defendants contained in Count III which, to the extent they state a valid claim, are redundant. It also recommended that the motion be denied in all other respects. Counsel of record were served with the Report and Recommendation and were advised they had ten (10) days from the date of service to file written objections to the report and recommendation. 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 May, 2006;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's request for punitive damages under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa.C.S.A. § 1421.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs claims against the individual Defendants contained in Count III.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated April 4, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the court.