Bonilla v. New York State

Bonilla v. New York State

Plaintiff:	Daniel Ray Bonilla
Defendant:	New York State
Case Number:	3:2015cv01276
Filed:	October 27, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Binghamton Office
County:	Broome
Presiding Judge:	Lawrence E. Kahn
Presiding Judge:	David E. Peebles
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
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
May 12, 2016	Filing 12 ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on May 12, 2016.***A copy of this order & subsequent judgment was served upon the pro se party by Certified US Mail & Regular US Mail. (sas)
February 9, 2016	Filing 9 ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)( ii); and it is further ORDERED, that the proposed Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading in this action; and it is furtherORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court forward the proposed Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 8) to U.S. Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles for initial review. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on February 09, 2016.***A copy of this order was served upon the pro se plaintiff by regular US mail. (sas)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 12, 2016

Filing 12 ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on May 12, 2016.***A copy of this order & subsequent judgment was served upon the pro se party by Certified US Mail & Regular US Mail. (sas)

February 9, 2016

Filing 9 ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)( ii); and it is further ORDERED, that the proposed Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading in this action; and it is furtherORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court forward the proposed Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 8) to U.S. Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles for initial review. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on February 09, 2016.***A copy of this order was served upon the pro se plaintiff by regular US mail. (sas)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bonilla v. New York State
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Daniel Ray Bonilla
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: New York State
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?