McClain v. Simple et al
| Tajah S. McClain |
| Scott Simple, Scott Erfe and Jane Ventrella |
| 3:2018cv00454 |
| March 16, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| Victor A. Bolden |
| William I. Garfinkel |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
53
ORDER granting 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, summary judgment is granted as to defendant Ventrella. The Clerk shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 2/7/2022. (McCallum, C.)
|
|
Filing
15
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER:(1) The Clerk of Court is requested to amend the docket case caption to change "Scott Simple" to "Scott Semple," reflecting the correct spelling of Defendant's name.(2) All claims against Defendan ts Semple and Erfe are DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (3) The Clerk of Court shall verify the current work addresses for Nurse Ventrella with the DOC Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet conta ining the Complaint, ECF No. 1, the motion to amend prayer of relief, ECF No. 10, and this Order to Nurse Ventrella at the confirmed address by May 15, 2020, and report to the Court on the status of the waiver requests by May 29, 2020. If Nurse Ventrella fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk of Court shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on her, and she shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d).(4) The Clerk of Court shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Order to the DOC Office of Legal Affairs.(5) Nurse Ventrella shall file her response to the Complaint, either an Answer or motion to dismiss, by July 10, 202 0. If she chooses to file an Answer, she shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited above. She may also include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules. (6)Discovery, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-37, shall be completed by November 13, 2020. Discovery requests need not be filed with the Court.(7)The parties must comply with the District of Connecticut Standing Order Re: Initial Discovery Disclosures, which will be sent to both parties by the Court. The Order can also be found at http://ctd.uscourts.gov/administrative-standing-orders. (8)All motions for summary judgment shall be filed by December 18, 2020.(9) Under Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving p arty 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.(10) If Mr. Mcclain changes his address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that he MUST notify the court. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the case. Mr. Mcclain must give notice of a new address even if he is incarcera ted. He 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 Mr. Mcclain has more than one pending case, he should indicate all of the case numbers in the notification of change of address. He should also notify Defendant or defense counsel of his new address. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/20/2020. (Leon, Noel)
|
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.
