ARAOYE v. VILSACK
This text of ARAOYE v. VILSACK (ARAOYE v. VILSACK) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAMUEL O. ARAOYE a/k/a : CIVIL ACTION ELLSWORTH D., Plaintiff,
v. NO. 23-1331 THOMAS J. VILSACK, JOSEPH HARRISON, STEPHANIE NIEMI, and DENNIS JEMMERSON, Defendants.
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 5th of February 2024, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Substitute Certain Defendants (ECF No. 53), Plaintiff’s response thereto (ECF No. 54), and the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 55-59), it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Joseph Harrison, Stephanie Niemi, and Dennis Jemmerson are DISMISSED from this case and Plaintiff’s claims for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendant Thomas J. Vilsack’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE this matter and mark it CLOSED. BY THE COURT:
/S/WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.
_______________________________ WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
ARAOYE v. VILSACK, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/araoye-v-vilsack-paed-2024.