Bryan v. Beckham et al
| Steven Bryan |
| Jeffrey Beckham and U.S. States Marshall Commission |
| 3:2019cv01540 |
| September 27, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Charles S Haight |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 9, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 RULING (see attached) denying Plaintiff's #8 Motion for Hearing and certifying that an appeal in forma pauperis in this matter would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on November 9, 2019. (Dorais, L.) |
Filing 9
ELECTRONIC ORDER approving and adopting the #7 Recommended Ruling of Magistrate Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam, dismissing Plaintiff's #1 Complaint. A district court reviews de novo only those portions of a magistrate judge's recommended ruling to which a specific, written objection has been made. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Any portion to which there has been no objection will be set aside "only for clear error." Campbell v. Astrue, 596 F. Supp. 2d 446, 448 n.1 (D. Conn. 2009). See also Leroy v. Colvin, 84 F. Supp. 3d 124, 127 (D. Conn. 2015); Bandhan v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 234 F. Supp. 2d 313, 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). In the case at bar, Plaintiff has filed no written objection to Magistrate Judge Merriam's #7 Recommended Ruling. Upon careful review of that thorough opinion, I find no error. As Magistrate Judge Merriam concluded, Plaintiff seeks to appeal a decision of the State Marshal Commission, and there is no basis to do so under the Connecticut General Statutes. Doc. #7 , at 5. Furthermore, "the State Marshal Commission is entitled to sovereign immunity" under the present facts so that the "Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any claims against it." Id., at 6 (citing Page v. State Marshal Comm'n, [108 Conn. App. 668, 674-75,] 950 A.2d 529 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)). Plaintiff alleges no facts that "would bring his action within any of [the] exceptions" to that immunity. Id. Accordingly, this Court approves and adopts the reasoning, findings, and conclusion of the #7 Recommended Ruling in full. Because Plaintiff was given the opportunity to amend his #1 Complaint by November 4, 2019, and elected not to do so, Plaintiff's #1 Complaint is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on November 8, 2019. (Dorais, L.)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Hearing by Steven Bryan. (Pipech, L.) |
| Filing 7 RECOMMENDED RULING. For the reasons set forth in the attached Recommended Ruling, the Court recommends that the #1 Complaint be DISMISSED, without prejudice to re-filing. If plaintiff disagrees with the recommendation set forth in this Ruling, he must file an objection on or before November 4, 2019.In the alternative, if plaintiff wishes to accept this Recommended Ruling and pursue his claim(s), he must file an amended complaint on or before November 4, 2019. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 10/16/2019. (Spangenburg, S.) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed without payment of fees and costs, which motion includes a sworn statement as to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Doc. #2 . Plaintiff has completed the required information. He asserts that he is unable to afford to pay fees and costs, having no income, no employment, and no assets. See generally id. at 3-5. At this stage, such allegations are sufficient to establish that plaintiff is unable to pay the ordinary filing fees required by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.Nevertheless, the Court notes that although plaintiff has filed numerous other lawsuits in this District, he has failed to list those lawsuits in the space provided in the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. #2 at 3. The Court reminds plaintiff that the financial affidavit attached to his motion is a sworn statement, and therefore must be completed in a truthful manner. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 10/16/2019. (Spangenburg, S.)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER OF REFERRAL (see attached) referring the case to Magistrate Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam for a ruling on #2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, a review of the #1 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S. C. 1915(e)(2)(B), and any conference or hearing to assist in resolving the referred matters. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on October 3, 2019. (Dorais, L.)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 9/27/2019.(Pipech, L.)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 11/26/2019; Discovery due by 3/28/2020; Dispositive Motions due by 5/2/2020. Signed by Clerk on 9/27/2019.(Pipech, L.)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Steven Bryan. (Pipech, L.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Jeffrey Beckham, U.S. States Marshall Commission, filed by Steven Bryan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Pipech, L.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
