Cabassa v. Ostheimer et al
| Francisco Cabassa |
| John Ostheimer, Cindy, Shron Brown, Scott Erfe, Scott Semple and C. Wrght |
| 3:2016cv00175 |
| February 3, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| Jeffrey A. Meyer |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
29
RULING GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 26 ) is GRANTED. To the extent that the complaint alleges any claims under state law, th e Court will decline to exercise federal jurisdiction in light of its dismissal of the federal law claims in this case. See, e.g., Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 11718 (2d Cir. 2013). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/27/2017. (Black, R.)
|
|
Filing
8
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. (1) The complaint will proceed against defendants in their individual capacities for the claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical need and medical malpractice against defendants Ostheimer and Wright, the conspira cy claim against all defendants, and the claim for supervisory liability against defendants Semple, Erfe, Cindy and Brown. (2) The Clerk shall verify the current work address of defendants Scott Semple, Scott Erfe, John Ostheimer, Nurse Ci ndy, Shron or Sharon Brown, and Dr. C. Wright with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet to each defendant at the confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, a nd report to the court on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on him in his or her individual capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).(3)The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Order to the Con necticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs.(4) The defendants shall file their response to the Complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date of the summons. I f they choose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claim recited above. They also may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.(5)Discovery, pursuant to Federal Ru les of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this Order. Discovery requests need not be filed with the court.(6) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight mo nths (240 days) from the date of this Order.(7)Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to a dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date the motion was filed. If no response is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.(8)If plaintiff changes his address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that plaintiff MUST notify the court. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff must give notice of a new address even if he is incarcerated. Plaintiff should write "PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS" on the notice. It is not enough to just put the new address on a letter without indicating that it is a new address. If plaintiff has more than one pending case, he should indicate all of the case numbers in the notification of change of address. Plaintiff should also notify defendants or the attorney for the defendants of his new address. (9) Plaintiff's motion for service (Doc. #3) is DENIED as moot. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/22/2016.(Oakes, A.)
|
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 Connecticut 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.
