Lisa Pupo Lenihan

“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 129, will be denied. ... the Court concludes that the record reflects myriad issues of material fact and is sufficient to maintain Plaintiff's claims as to Counts I, III and IV. It further concludes that on the present record Count II raises a close Constitutional question inappropriate for decision on summary judgment.”

“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff, Chad E. St. Clair (ECF No. 40) will be denied.”

“The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Ronald V. Harris, Jr. (ECF No. 47) will be granted as to the defamation claim and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim, but denied as to all other claims.”

“Haun's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10) will be denied, the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) will be granted, and final judgment will be entered in favor of the Commissioner and against Haun.”

“the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) will be granted, and final judgment will be entered in favor of the Commissioner and against Haun.”

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 51) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED and that Defendant City of Pittsburgh is dismissed with prejudice.”

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count Two (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED, Count Two of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Report and Recommendation thereon (ECF No. 66) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.”

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 78 & 89) are granted in part and denied in part. The Motions are granted as they relate to Plaintiff's retaliation, access to court, free exercise of religion, and equal protection claims, which are all dismissed with prejudice. The Motions are granted as they relate to the sexual harassment claims against Defendants Dr. Jin, Dr. Dascani, Nelson and Suhan, which are also dismissed with prejudice. The Motions are denied as they relate to Plaintiff's sexual harassment/assault claims against Defendants Oswald, Smith, Farrier and Stump, and are also denied as to Plaintiff's denial of medical care claims against Defendants Dr. Jin, Dr. Park, Dr. Dascani, PA Comer, PA Mattes, PA Mwaura, and CHCA Vihlidal.”

“The Court approves and adopts Judge Lenihan’s Report and Recommendation in part to the extent it recommends the Petition be denied as the Opinion of the Court. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.”

“AND NOW, this 28th day of May, 2021, IT IS ORDERED that the within petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. [7] shall be, and hereby is, DENIED. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, issued on April 26, 2021, ECF No. [22], is hereby adopted as the opinion of this Court.”

“IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF 8] is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] is DISMISSED as moot and that this case be closed.”

“The Petition of Telano L. White for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 4) is DISMISSED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, dated January 11, 2017, hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court.”

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition.”

“The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) will be denied, and Bedard’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10) will be denied insofar as it requests an award of benefits but granted to the extent that it seeks a vacation of the Commissioner’s final decision, and a remand for further administrative proceedings.”

“Bedard’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10) will be denied insofar as it requests an award of benefits but granted to the extent that it seeks a vacation of the Commissioner’s final decision, and a remand for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner’s decision will be vacated, and the case will be remanded to him for further consideration of Bedard’s application for SSI benefits.”