This Court has previously dismissed plaintiff's claims against ...

The moving party bears the initial burden of
demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct.
2548 (1986). Once the movant has done so, however, the nonmoving
party cannot rest on its pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e). Rather, the non-movant must then “make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential
to his case, based on the affidavits or by depositions and
admissions on file.” Harter v. GAF Corp., 967 F.2d 846, 852 (3d
Cir. 1992); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). When there are cross-motions,
each motion must be considered separately, and each side must
still establish a lack of genuine issues of material fact and
that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rains v.
Cascade Indus., Inc., 402 F.2d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 1968); see also
Sterling v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 926 F. Supp.
65, 68 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (citing United States v. Hall, 730 F.
Supp. 646, 648 (M.D. Pa. 1990)); Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal
Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2720.
I. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff brings his claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, which requires plaintiff to demonstrate that: (1) a
person deprived him of a federal right; and (2) the person who
deprived him of that right acted under color of state law. See
Gorman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995).
6