Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

9-25-2008

Magoni-Detwiler v. Bloomingdale Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-3712

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

Recommended Citation "Magoni-Detwiler v. Bloomingdale" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 489. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/489

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 07-3712 _____________

JENNIFER MAGONI-DETWILER,

Appellant

v.

RICHARD W. BLOOMINGDALE, CHAIR PERSON UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW; EILEEN B. MELVIN, MEMBER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW; LARRY DUNN, MEMBER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW; WILLIAM HAWKINS, MEMBER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW; EDWARD P. RAWLINGS, CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR; STEPHEN SCHMERIN, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (06-cv-0490406) (Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno)

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 8, 2008

Before: Scirica, McKee and Smith, Circuit Judges

(Filed: September 25, 2008 )

1 OPINION OF THE COURT

McKee, Circuit Judge

Jennifer Magoni-Detwiler appeals the dismissal of her amended complaint in the

suit she brought against numerous defendants after she was denied unemployment

compensation. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

In his thoughtful and well reasoned Memorandum, Judge Robreno

thoroughly explained why this complaint could not survive the defendants’ motion to

dismiss. Since nothing need be added to the district court’s careful analysis, we will

affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in that Memorandum.

2