HANUSCAK v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY HANUSCAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:26-cv-3404-MMB
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
AND NOW, this 8th day of October, 2026, upon review of the Motion to Dismiss filed
by Defendants Temple University – Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education,
Temple President John Fry, and Temple Professor Mark Salzer, Ph.D., ECF 13, and Plaintiff
Jeffrey Hanuscak’s Response, ECF 14, for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum
of law, the following is hereby ORDERED:
1. 	The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice as to all claims relating to the alleged device, as well as all Section 1983 claims
alleging violation of the Rehabilitation Act and all standalone Rehabilitation Act claims
against Defendants Fry and Salzer.
2. 	Any 	claims 	alleging 	false 	arrest 	or 	malicious 	prosecution, 	and 	any 	standalone
Rehabilitation Act claims against Defendant Temple University are DISMISSED with leave
to amend.
3. 	If Plaintiff is prepared to assert additional claims or amend existing claims, he must file
an amended complaint within thirty (30) days and must strictly follow the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
4. 	Plaintiff’s second response, ECF 15, filed on September 24, 2026, and two memoranda of
law, ECFs 16 and 17, both filed on October 7, 2026, are improper and shall be STRICKEN
Case 2:26-cv-03404-MMB Document 19 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
from the record. Under the Pretrial and Trial Procedures governing civil cases, published by
Judge Baylson on May 14, 2024, this Court indicates the following: “Surreply briefs are not
accepted without leave of the Court and should only be requested if the moving party has
asserted new arguments or citations in its reply brief.” Plaintiff failed to request leave of the
Court to file additional responses to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 	Regardless, because
Defendants had not filed a reply, no grounds existed for this Court to allow additional filings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Michael M. Baylson___
MICHAEL M. BAYLSON
United States District Judge
\\adu.dcn\paed\PHL-DATA\Judge_Baylson\CIVIL 26\26-3404 Hanuscak v. Temple University\26-3404 Order on MTD.doc
Case 2:26-cv-03404-MMB Document 19 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2