Prince et al v. Department of Social Services of Oneida County et al
| Eldora Prince and Ngcoba Atkins |
| Department of Social Services of Oneida County, Lucille Soldado, Samuel D. Roberts, Brian Kirley and Melanie DeFazio |
| 6:2016cv00440 |
| April 18, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Utica Office |
| Oneida |
| 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
16
DECISION & ORDER: It is Ordered that the referral of the # 12 amended complaint, to Magistrate Judge Baxter is terminated; Plaintiffs are permitted forty-five (45) days in which to file a new, proposed second amended complaint only as to their due process claims; If plaintiffs choose to file such by the deadline of October 30, 2017, the pleading will be referred to Magistrate Judge Baxter for further review; (Amended Pleadings due by 10/30/2017) and If plaintiffs fail to file a new, proposed second amended complaint by that deadline, the previous amended complaint will be dismissed in its entirety, without further order. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/21/2017. {Copy served upon the pro se plaintiff via regular mail} (jmb)
|
|
Filing
15
DECISION & ORDER: It is Ordered that the # 1 Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice and the regarding the # 12 Amended Complaint it is Ordered that all but the due process claims be DISMISSED with prejudice. The new Amended Complaint is referred back to Magistrate Judge Baxter for his review. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/15/2017. (Copy served upon the pro se plaintiffs via regular mail) (jmb)
|
|
Filing
8
DECISION & ORDER: It is Ordered that the # 4 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED IN WHOLE, 1) Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the Oneida County Department of Social Services and Samuel D. Roberts, Commissioner of New York State Office of Temporary Disability; 2) Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to any due process, equal protection claims, or claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. or the Rehabilitatio n Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), as detailed in the May 5, 2016 Report-Recommendation; 3) Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all remaining claims (defamation, fraud, fraud in the inducement, negligence, harassment, retaliat ion, official misconduct, undue burden, breach of contract and embezzlement); 4) Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint on or before Monday, August 8, 2016 asto only the claims that are dismissed without prejudice, against individuals who plaintiff s claim were responsible for the alleged violations; 5) If Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, such amended complaint shallsupersede and replace their original complaint in its entirety and comply with all requirements outlined in the Rep ort-Recommendation; 6) If plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within the appropriate time or request an extension of time to do so, this action will be dismissed with prejudice; 7) If plaintiffs file a proposed amended complaint within the a llotted time, the proposed amended complaint shall be returned to Magistrate Judge Baxter to determine its compliance with the Report-Recommendation and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e). {A copy of this Decision & Order was sent to the pro se plaintiff's by regular mail} Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 6/23/2016. (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.
