WALTHOUR v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided August 13, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-02779·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VICTOR WALTHOUR : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-2779 : CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL. :

ORDER

This 13th day of August, 2021, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF 11, 12, 14) are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff is FURTHER ORDERED, within fourteen (14) days, to show cause as to why his complaint against the City of Philadelphia should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). See Schneller ex rel Schneller v. Fox Subacute at Clara Burke, 317 Fed.Appx. 135, 138 (3d Cir. 2008) (observing that while district courts are empowered to dismiss complaints sua sponte, plaintiffs “must be given notice and an opportunity to respond”).

/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WALTHOUR v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, (E.D. Pa. 2021).

WALTHOUR v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA (WALTHOUR v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schneller v. Fox Subacute at Clara Burke
317 F. App'x 135 (Third Circuit, 2008)