Ruggiero v. City of Cortland, New York et al
| Gerald Ruggiero |
| City of Cortland, New York, County of Cortland, New York, Brian Tobin, Richard Van Donsel, David Briggs, Robert Rhea, Mack Cook, William Knickerbocker, Charles Glover, Mary Kay Hickey, Jim Reeners, Troy Beckwith, Kathryn Silliman, Ken Dye, Thomas Michales, John Bennett, Jr., Mark Suben, F. Michael Catalano, Paul Sandy, Brian Myers, Kenneth Bush, John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) |
| 5:2017cv00790 |
| July 19, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Syracuse Office |
| Cortland |
| Andrew T. Baxter |
| David N. Hurd |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
142
JUDGMENT in favor of City of Cortland, New York, Brian Tobin, David Briggs, Kathryn Silliman, Mary Kay Hickey, Richard Van Donsel, Robert Rhea against Gerald Ruggiero. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the City defendants motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and Plaintiffs second amended complaint is DISMISSED.(Copy served via regular and certified mail to Pro Se Plaintiff) (gmd, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/16/2021: # 1 F.Rules of Appellate Procedure) (gmd, ).
|
|
Filing
77
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER: It is Ordered that the # 71 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; further that the # 73 Cross Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is DENIED, Plaintiff 9;s First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims against the City, Mayor Tobin, Attorney Van Donsel, Tax Assessor Briggs, Zoning Officer Rhea, Chairperson Hickey, Alderman Sillman REMAIN for discovery and, if appropria te, summary judgment motions; Plaintiff's renewed claim against Officer Myers is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Officer Myers as a defendant in this action; The City, Mayor Tobin, Attorney Van Donsel, T ax Assessor Briggs, Zoning Officer Rhea, Chairperson Hickey and Alderman Sillman shall file an answer to plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims on or before May 17, 2019. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 5/3/2019. (Copy served upon the pro se plaintiff via regular mail) (jmb)
|
|
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER: It is Ordered that the County Defendants' # 51 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; The City Defendants' # 54 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's claims against the County def endants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate the County defendants as parties to this action. Plaintiff's conspiracy, false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of medical treatment, and state law constitutional claims against the City defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims against the City defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; finally it is Ordered that Pla intiff may file an amended complaint as to the First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims against the City defendants in accordance With the instructions set forth above within thirty (30) days from the date of this MemorandumDecision & Order. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 11/14/2018. (Copy served upon the pro se plaintiff via regular mail) (jmb)
|
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.
