Woolsey v. The County Government of Suffolk County, New York

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Woolsey v. The County Government of Suffolk County, New York

Woolsey v. The County Government of Suffolk County, New York

Plaintiff:	Charles Robert Woolsey
Defendant:	The County Government of Suffolk County, New York
Case Number:	2:2011cv04806
Filed:	October 3, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Joseph F. Bianco
Presiding Judge:	Arlene R. Lindsay
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 14, 2014	Filing 100 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons set forth herein, although no objections have been filed and thus de novo review is not required, the Court, in an abundance of caution, has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recom mendation and HEREBY ADOPTS the well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Federal Defendants, the Brookhaven Defendants, and the County Defendants motions to dismiss are granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the Report and Recommendation, leave to re-plead is denied because further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/14/2014. cm to pltf by Chambers on 03/14/14 (Chipev, George)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 14, 2014

Filing 100 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons set forth herein, although no objections have been filed and thus de novo review is not required, the Court, in an abundance of caution, has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recom mendation and HEREBY ADOPTS the well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Federal Defendants, the Brookhaven Defendants, and the County Defendants motions to dismiss are granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the Report and Recommendation, leave to re-plead is denied because further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/14/2014. cm to pltf by Chambers on 03/14/14 (Chipev, George)

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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Woolsey v. The County Government of Suffolk County, New York
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Charles Robert Woolsey
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: The County Government of Suffolk County, New York
Represented By:	Jennifer K. McNamara
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?