Banks v. Booher et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARVIN BANKS,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BRADLEY BOOHER,
et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-cv-00474
(SAPORITO, J.)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of February, 2026, in accordance with the
accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Defendants’ 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment 	(Doc. 	62) 	is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment (Docs. 51, 56, 71,
84) are DENIED.
2. 	The 	Clerk 	is 	directed 	to 	enter 	JUDGMENT 	in 	favor 	of
defendants and against plaintiffs.
3. 	Any 	further 	relief 	requested 	in 	defendants’ 	“Notice 	of
Suggestion of Mootness” (Doc. 48); plaintiff Arnold’s motion to strike the
Notice (Doc. 49); plaintiff Banks’s request for appointment of counsel (
see
Doc. 72 at 16); and plaintiff Banks’s motion for preliminary injunctive
relief (Doc. 76) is DENIED.
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 86 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
4. 	The Clerk is DIRECTED to mark this case as closed.
Dated: February 27, 2026
	s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 86 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 2