Teeter v. Boland

• Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 18, 2021
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01247
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

F O RIN T THHEE M UIDNDITLEED D SITSTARTIECST D OISFT PREINCNT SCYOLUVRATN IA

DAVID TEETER, : Plaintiff, : 1:19-cv-1247 : v. : Hon. John E. Jones III : JEFF BOLAND and KEVIN : KOLLMAN, : Defendants. :

ORDER February 18, 2021

NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of Defendants’ motions (Docs. 36, 45) for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum of the same date, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motions (Docs. 36, 45) for summary judgment are GRANTED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.

3. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.1

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

1 The Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court “must decline” to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in such circumstances “unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original) (quoting Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d 5. SAeney 2 a8p Upe.Sal. Cfr.o §m 1 t9h1i5s (oar)d(3er) .i s deemed frivolous and not in good faith.

s/ John E. Jones III John E. Jones III, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania