From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mithcell v. Grynkewicz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 21, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-11-1998 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-11-1998

02-21-2012

VICTOR LLOYD MITHCELL Plaintiff v. EDWARD V. GRYNKEWICZ, III, et al. Defendants


(Chief Judge Kane)

(Magistrate Judge Blewitt)


ORDER

Before the court in the captioned action is a January 31, 2012 report of the magistrate judge. No timely objections have been filed.

Accordingly, upon review of the record and the applicable law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Blewitt.

2) Defendants' Motion for a Stay (Doc. No. 22) and their alternative request for relief is dismissed without prejudice since they are barred by Heck. Plaintiff's denial of medical care claim under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and his Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants is allowed to proceed.

3) The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for further proceedings.

_______________

YVETTE KANE

Chief Judge

United States District Court


Summaries of

Mithcell v. Grynkewicz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 21, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-11-1998 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2012)
Case details for

Mithcell v. Grynkewicz

Case Details

Full title:VICTOR LLOYD MITHCELL Plaintiff v. EDWARD V. GRYNKEWICZ, III, et al…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Feb 21, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-11-1998 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2012)

Citing Cases

Zavec v. Collins

However, many courts have dismissed § 1983 false arrest claims relying on the general rule that a guilty plea…