District Court

MEMORANDA AND ORDERS

AUGUST 14, 2024

BY KENNEY, J.

USA v. Ross; 05-398; This Court�s authority to �re-open[ ]� or �revise� its judgment dismissing petitioner�s pro se habeas petition or its judgment dismissing petitioner�s pro se Petition/Motion.

BY GOLDBERG, J.

Clark v. Beard et al; 10-3164; These reasons, I conclude that relief is not warranted under Rule 60(b). Judge Smith�s determination that Clark�s Brady claim would be �second or successive� will stand. Because the Third Circuit has already denied Clark permission to bring that claim, any motion in this Court to add such a claim would be futile. I will therefore deny Clark�s motion to appoint counsel.

BY MARSTON, J.

Verdier v. McGinley et al; 20-1916; The foregoing reasons, upon consideration of Petitioner�s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 2254 (Doc. Nos. 1, 26), the Amended R&R (Doc. No. 45) and objections to the initial R&R (Doc. No. 9), this Court adopts the Amended R&R in its entirety, denies Petitioner�s habeas petition with prejudice, and overrules Petitioner�s objections to the R&R.

BY PAPPERT, J.

Brighton Trustees LLC et al v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company; 23-2251; The Court also adopts the portion of the Special Master�s opinion denying Plaintiffs� motion to compel production of the actuarial memoranda post-dating 2017. The parties did not file any objections to that portion of the opinion and order, and the Court discerns no clear error in the Special Master�s reasoning.

BY ARTEAGA, J.

Lucrecia T. v. O�Malley; 23-3664; Lucrecia T.�s request for review is denied and a remand for further proceedings is not required.

Pomper v. AAA Mid-Atlantic Insurance Group; 23-3757; The reasons set forth above, AAA�s Motion to Dismiss is granted. Because Pomper has already had opportunities to plead a bad faith claim and has been unable to do so, further amendment would be futile, so Count II is dismissed with prejudice.

BY PEREZ, J.

Freeman v. Capstone Logistics LLC; 23-4653; The foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the TAC without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Freeman will not be given further leave to amend, because amendment will be futile.

BY SLOMSKY, J.

Montgomery Law LLC v. Jacobson & John LLP; 24-108; The foregoing reasons, Defendant�s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. No. 5) will be denied.

BY KENNEY, J.

Johnson v. Guthrie; 24-2170; The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement of each claim showing that Johnson is entitled to relief against each Defendant. Johnson must describe in the amended complaint how that Defendant acted personally to harm him.