Kezia O. L. Taylor

“The Report and Recommendation recommends that the pending Motions to Dismiss be granted, and that the claims set forth in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.”

“The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 123) filed by Defendant Christina Ferraro ... and the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 124) filed by Defendants Officer Steven Maritz, Officer Pierre DeFelice, and Lieutenant Safar will be granted, and the claims set forth in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice, as amendment would be futile.”

“Judge Taylor's February 14, 2025 Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court grant, with prejudice, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) filed by Defendants, UPMC, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, and John/Jane Doe ('UPMC Defendants') ... It is further ordered that UPMC Defendants and County Defendants Motions to Dismiss are granted.”

“... and grant, with prejudice, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) filed by Allegheny County and Jacob Porter ('County Defendants').”

“The Motion to Dismiss is granted as to any claim for unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, or false imprisonment, and any such claims are dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Plaintiff's malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims, and such claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. ... Any attempt to amend the Fourth Amended Complaint as to Plaintiff's claims under federal law would be futile, and these claims are thus dismissed with prejudice.”

“The R&R recommends that Bingaman's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 by a Person in State Custody (the 'Petition') ... be dismissed as moot ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bingaman's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 ... is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”

“Bingaman's Motion for Permission to File Supplemental Pleading Pursuant to Rule 15(d) ... be denied without prejudice to Bingaman's right to initiate new habeas proceedings challenging the Board's most recent decision denying him parole.”

Prisoner-screening Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), rather than a ruling on a party motion. Taylor recommended dismissing a self-represented inmate's Section 1983 excessive-force complaint for failure to state a claim. She concluded that an identical claim against the same defendants had ended in summary judgment for failure to exhaust, that a later grievance did not cure the PLRA exhaustion failure, and that the claim was time-barred; she also found amendment futile. The available record does not show whether Judge Cercone adopted the recommendation.

Rule 41(b) failure-to-prosecute recommendation, rather than a ruling on a party's merits motion. Taylor recommended dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with her show-cause order. Judge Colville adopted the recommendation in full, dismissed the case with prejudice, and dismissed the defendants' pending summary-judgment motion as moot.

Rule 41(b) failure-to-prosecute recommendation, rather than a ruling on a party motion. Taylor recommended dismissal after the plaintiff stopped prosecuting the case. Judge Colville adopted the recommendation in full, found that the plaintiff's apparent abandonment made adjudication impossible, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

“For the reasons set forth below, the Amended Petition will be denied and a certificate of appealability will also be denied.”

“For the reasons set forth below, the Petition will be denied and a certificate of appealability will also be denied.”

“Petitioner's claim merits no relief.”

“Petitioner's claim merits no relief.”

“For the following reasons, the Petition will be dismissed since it was untimely filed and because all the claims in it are procedurally defaulted.”