McKeever v. Nassau County et al
| Victor McKeever |
| Nassau County and Madeline Singas |
| 2:2017cv04996 |
| August 23, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Steven I. Locke |
| Joanna Seybert |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
108
ADOPTION ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; For the stated reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED, the R&R (ECF No. 104) is ADOPTED with the foregoing modification, Defendants' motions to dismiss ( ECF Nos. 61, 66, 77, 83) are GRANTED in their entirety, and Plaintiff's claims against Nassau County, Singas, Gurrier, Kalaydijan, Murack, Carroll, Stadtmiller, Delaney, Martin, and Allegheny County are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; IT IS FURTHER OR DERED that, because Plaintiff's surviving claims against Ross and Mineola are inextricably intertwined with and premised upon the same factual allegations as the now-dismissed claims against the Nassau County Defendants, Martin, the PA/DA Defend ants, and Allegheny County, on or before October 14, 2022, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why his remaining claims against Ross and Mineola should not be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is WARNED that his failure to timely compl y with this Order to Show Cause will lead to the dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ross is directed to file a res ponse to Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause submission on or before October 21, 2022; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants serve a copy of this Adoption Order upon Plaintiff forthwith and file proof of such service on ECF on or before September 9, 2022. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 9/7/2022. (Valle, Christine)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER terminating 87 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 89 Motion to Withdraw; For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Letter Motion (ECF No. 89) is GRANTED insofar as his request to dismiss claims against defendant City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is SO ORDERED and the claims against Pittsburgh are DISMISSED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 87) is TERMINATED as MOOT; and, the Court's referral of Pittsburgh's motion to dismiss to Judge Locke is WITHDRAWN; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent Plaintiff seeks default judgments against defendants Ross and the City of Mineola, New York, the Letter M otion is DENIED without prejudice; however, the Court REFERS Plaintiff's request for entries of default against these defendants to the Clerk of the Court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall (1) terminate the City of Pi ttsburgh, Pennsylvania as a defendant; (2) update the docket to substitute the Incorporated Village of Mineola, New York as the proper defendant in place of defendant the County of Mineola, New York; and (3) mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Pl aintiff; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 9/21/2021. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
|
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.
