Urena v. Wolfson et al
| Jose Rafael Urena |
| Yan Wolfson, New York Downtown Hospital, Robert Beaudouin and BOP - Metropolitan Detention Center |
| 1:2009cv01107 |
| March 11, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Kings |
| Lois Bloom |
| Kiyo A. Matsumoto |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
220
ORDER granting 209 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, defendant Beaudouin's motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment in favor of defendant and to close the case. Additionally, the government is requested to mail a copy of this order and the judgment to the plaintiff at his current address and note service on the docket within one business day of the entry of judgment. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/16/2014. (Keefe, Reed)
|
|
Filing
205
ORDER terminating 202 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated in the attached order, the motion is terminated without prejudice. The defendant is respectfully requested to serve the order on plaintiff and file proof of service with the court by November 7, 2013. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 11/6/2013. (Keefe, Reed)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER denying 142 Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the court denies defendant Dr. Beaudouin's motion for partial reconsideration of the court's denial of summary judgment on plai ntiff's Bivens claim alleging that Dr. Beaudouin was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The parties shall contact Magistrate Judge Bloom by April 19, 2012 to schedule a settlement conference. The defendant shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on the pro se plaintiff by April 9, 2012 and file a certificate of service by April 10, 2012. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 4/6/2012. (Winterkorn, Margaret)
|
|
Filing
161
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Dr. Yan Wolfson, M.D. 135 and New York Downtown Hospital ("NYDH") 146 are granted in their entir ety. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter a partial judgment in favor of defendants Dr. Wolfson and NYDH in accordance with this decision. Defendant NYDH shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on the pro se plaintiff by March 22, 2012 and file a certificate of service via ECF by March 23, 2012. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/20/2012. (Ravi, Sagar)
|
|
Filing
159
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 133 denying Motion to Amend Plaintiff's Complaint 123 . For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Bloom's Report and Recom mendation 133 and hereby affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the court. Counsel for defendant Beaudouin shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order upon pro se plaintiff and file a declaration of service by 03/02/12. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 2/29/2012. (Ravi, Sagar)
|
|
Filing
102
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, (1) defendant NYDH's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part 74 ; (2) defendant Wolfson's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part 79 ; (3) defendants MDC's and Beaudouin's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part 65 ; and (4) plaintiff's motion "to strike" the federal defendants' motion is denied. The parties are ordered to schedule a conference with Magistrate Judge Bloom to discuss whether pro bono counsel can be appointed to represent plaintiff on the remaining claims. The United States Attorneys Office is ordered to serve a cop y of this Memorandum and Order on the plaintiff and file a declaration of service by December 7, 2010. The parties are directed to submit a joint status letter via ECF as to how they intend to proceed by December 20, 2010. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 12/6/2010. (Zeehandelaar, Rachel)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER: Plaintiff moves for an Order to compel defendants to provide the information and documents requested in his interrogatories and document requests. Plaintiff's 57 request is denied. The deadline for the parties to complete all discovery passed on 11/23/2009. Plaintiff is directed to focus his efforts on opposing defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, which are due to be served on plaintiff on 1/22/2010. SO ORDERED. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, on 12/22/2009) C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER: By letter filed with the Court on 11/2/2009, plaintiff requests permission to have a fellow inmate, Jimmy Clark, present to assist him during his deposition on 11/3/2009. As the deposition has already been conducted, plaintiff's 46 req uest is moot. Moreover, although inmates may assist other inmates with legal papers, the Court would not authorize another inmate to attend plaintiff's deposition. If plaintiff requires an interpreter forany continued deposition, he should make his request for an interpreter to defendants' counsel. SO ORDERED. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, on 11/13/2009) C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
