HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-4835
JAMES A. PALUCH, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW
: NO. 08-4835 CIVIL
: NO. 08-6175 CIVIL
PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, :
ET AL., :
Defendants :
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
BEFORE HESS, P.J.
In the above-captioned matters, the plaintiff filed complaints against the Department of
Corrections and several of its employees alleging mistreatment. The plaintiff is an inmate in the
State Correctional System. In both cases, the plaintiff has submitted a bewildering number of
1
filings and sorting out the history of this case has not been an easy task.
Our review of both files indicates that Judge Bayley sustained preliminary objections and
dismissed both complaints in April of 2009. To the extent that the plaintiff now appeals from
those orders, we rely upon Judge Bayley’s opinions, docketed with his orders, and incorporate
same herein by reference. We are unclear, however, as to what matters the plaintiff complains
of on appeal.
On March 4, 2010, an order was entered by the Superior Court indicating that it had
received an application from the plaintiff describing his unsuccessful attempts to file a notice of
appeal from Judge Bayley’s April 2009 orders. This court was directed to accept and docket an
1
Until the end of 2009, this case was dealt with by former, and now retired, President Judge Edgar B. Bayley. The
author of this memorandum has dealt with the matter since April of 2010.
appeal if submitted to the Prothonotary for filing. Appeal documents were not filed and, instead,
the plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for Intervention” which we eventually dismissed
by order of July 1, 2010. On September 7, 2010, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Superior Court nunc pro tunc. Having reviewed the file and again being uncertain as to the
grounds for the plaintiff’s appeal, we served upon him a direction to file a concise statement of
matters complained of. He was given twenty-one days within which to do so. The twenty-one-
day period has expired. We are satisfied that any claims that the defendant has are now waived.
See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1999).
BY THE COURT,
January 6, 2011 ____________________
Kevin A. Hess, P. J.
James A. Paluch, Jr.
BQ3769
SCI-Smithfield
1120 Pike Street
Huntingdon, PA 16652
Plaintiff
Raymond Dorian, Esquire
Assistant Counsel – PA DOC
55 Utley Drive
Camp Hill, PA 17011-8028
:rlm