McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.
AND NOW, to wit, this 5th day of July, 2007, upon sua sponte reconsideration of this Court's previous Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June 29, 2007,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint  is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged violation of Brittany Legler's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights insofar as said claim is premised upon a "special relationship" theory;
2. Defendants' motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' prayer for punitive damages insofar as it relates to Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against OCY and the individual Defendants in their official capacities;
3. Defendants' motion is GRANTED with respect to Counts 3 and 4 of the Complaint, which are founded on state law claims of negligence per se and gross negligence, respectively; and
4. In all other respects, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED.
(Mem. Op. dated 6/29/07  at p. 2.) In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2007), the Supreme Court wrote that this quoted language from Conley "has been questioned, criticized, and explained away long enough" to have "earned its retirement." 127 S.Ct. at 1969.
The Supreme Court in Twombly also reiterated the well-accepted standards for reviewing a complaint challenged under Rule 12(b)(6), although its discussion came in the context of a Section 1 Sherman Act claim:
127 S.Ct. at 1965-66 (internal footnote omitted).
To the extent that our June 29 Memorandum Opinion incorporates language from Conley v. Gibson, which has been abrogated or overruled by Twombly, supra, said language is to be stricken from the Memorandum Opinion. Moreover, applying the well-accepted standard for judging the adequacy of a pleading under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) as set forth in Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965-66, the Court hereby reaffirms its ruling as set forth in the June 29, 2007 Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.