Case ID: f-appx_550/html/0090-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McKEE, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kathleen ROBERTS; M.W., A Minor, by his Mother and Natural Guardian, Kathleen Roberts, Appellants v. TOWNSHIP OF UPPER DARBY; Superintendent Michael Chitwood; Captain George Rhoades; Captain Anthony Paparo; Arthur Earle; Officer William Mcgoldrick; Officer Philip Lydon; Officer William Sminkey.
    No. 12-4604.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Oct. 31, 2013.
    Opinion Filed: Jan. 10, 2014.
    
      Jon J. Auritt, Esq., Law Office of Jon J. Auritt, Media, PA, for Appellants.
    Robert P. Didomenicis, Esq., Holsten & Associates, Media, PA, for Township of Upper Darby; Superintendent Michael Chitwood; Captain George Rhoades; Captain Anthony Paparo; Arthur Earle; Officer William Mcgoldrick; Officer Philip Lydon; Officer William Sminkey.
    Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, FISHER and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

McKEE, Chief Judge.

Kathleen Roberts appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Township of Upper Darby and members of its police force. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court.

Since we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this litigation, we need not recite the underlying procedural and factual background of this case.

The district court concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to establish a genuine dispute as to any material fact on any of the claims in the complaint. Roberts v. Twp. of Upper Darby, No. 2:10-cv-190, 2012 WL 5928993 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 26, 2012). This appeal followed.

In its Memorandum Opinion, the district court carefully and thoroughly explained its reasoning as well as the basis for concluding that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact pertaining to any of the federal or state claims set forth in the complaint. In doing so, the court undertook a well reasoned analysis that adequately and accurately disposed of each claim that Roberts raised.

Since little can be added to the district court’s analysis, we will affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to all claims substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum Opinion.