Richard A. Lanzillo

“this Court entered a Memorandum Order [ECF No. 45] adopting Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo's Report and Recommendation to grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Oberlander and Wetzel, but to deny Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Montag.”

“On August 9, 2024, Judge Lanzillo issued a ... R&R recommending that Defendant Montag's motion for summary judgment be granted on the sole remaining claim ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Montag's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 57] is GRANTED”

“For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Lindsey’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 91) and Voorhis’ cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 86) each be denied.”

Pro se IFP 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) screening. Lanzillo recommended dismissal as frivolous: 'Deep State'/court/police-department defendants not suable under 1983, private parties not state actors, judges entitled to absolute immunity, no viable constitutional/NLRA/contract claim; six pro se motions dismissed as frivolous. Baxter adopted, dismissed WITH prejudice (defects uncorrectable by amendment). Quote: 'this action is DISMISSED as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) ... such dismissal is with prejudice.' As a sua sponte screening order, it is excluded from the statistics.

“Thus, because Plaintiff's motion was filed outside of the one-year time period, it is untimely. ... For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.”

“Pauley's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 120) is DENIED.”

“After a thorough review of the summary judgment record, the Court finds that no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial and that the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the Plaintiffs' remaining claims. The Court will therefore grant the Defendants' motion.”

“Here, Angle's request for injunctive relief does not relate to any of his claims raised in this action. ... Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion injunction is DENIED. For the same reasons, the Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.”

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [45], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: the motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Davis, and the motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment 'failure to protect' claim against Defendant Steed. The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, issued on February 1, 2019, ECF No. [58], is adopted as the opinion of this Court.”

“Does the 17-year duration of Johnston's conditions of solitary confinement distinguish his case from the otherwise comparable conditions addressed in Peterkin v. Jeffes ... such that it is for a jury to determine whether these conditions and their duration violated Johnston's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment? The Court holds that it does and that disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment for Johnston or the Defendants on this claim.”

“Are the Defendants nevertheless entitled to summary judgment on Johnston's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on qualified immunity? The Court holds that they are not.”

“For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed. Plaintiff can reopen this case by filing an amended complaint, if so desired, within 20 days of the accompanying order.”

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed, with prejudice.”

“Defendants Overmyer, Gustafson, Cummins, Kennedy, Sheesley, Best, Mealy, and Anthony's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 100] will be granted as to Count One (Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims) and Count Three (Fourteenth Amendment claim). The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Five (intentional infliction of emotional distress) and Count Six (negligence).”

“Defendant Hasper's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 108] is GRANTED as to Count One. Defendant McKeel's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 104] is GRANTED as to Count One (Eighth Amendment claim).”