Dove v. Smith et al
| Donald Mack Dove |
| Martin E. Smith, Gerald F. Mollen and Joanne Rose Parry |
| 3:2013cv01315 |
| October 23, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Binghamton Office |
| Clinton |
| David E. Peebles |
| David N. Hurd |
| 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
7
DECISION and ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 4 . Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which plaintiff objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to replead; and the Clerk is directed to file a judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 1/14/2014. (lah)
|
|
Filing
4
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER re 1 Complaint filed by Donald Mack Dove. ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is GRANTED and it is further RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's complaint in this action be DISMISSED in all respects as against all three named defendants without leave to replead. (Objections to R&R due by 1/6/2014, Case Review Deadline 1/9/2014). Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 12/19/2013. (copy of RRO sent by regular mail to plaintiff)(lah, )
|
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 Northern 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.
