Abdul-Matiyn v. Pataki et al

Abdul-Matiyn v. Pataki et al

Case Number:	9:2006cv01503
Filed:	December 15, 2006
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Prisoner Office
Presiding Judge:	David R. Homer
Presiding Judge:	David N. Hurd
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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
March 8, 2011	Filing 155 JUDGMENT DISMISSING CASE IN ANTICIPATION OF SETTLEMENT: this action is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice to the right of the parties to secure reinstatement of the case within ninety (90) days after the date of this judgment by making a showing that the settlement was not, in fact, consummated; and in the event that no request is made for reinstatement within ninety (90) days of the date of this judgment. (lmw)
September 28, 2010	Filing 122 DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 121) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in part. ORDERED that the Defendants' motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 102, 107) are GRANTED in part and DENIED i n part. ORDERED that all the claims asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) are DISMISSED from this action except for Plaintiff's First Amendment claim that Defendants Hanmer, Murphy, and Nowicki denied him the right to pray. ORDER ED that the clerk shall terminate Defendants Allen, Rowe, Valezquez, Benbow, Johnson, Walsh, Farnum, Debroize, Forshee, Barboza, Capolo and Becker from this action. ORDERED that the clerk of the Court shall appoint pro bono counsel for plaintiff for purposes of trial, and as soon as pro bono counsel has been appointed, the Court will schedule a pretrial conference to set a trial date in this action. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/28/10. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 8, 2011

Filing 155 JUDGMENT DISMISSING CASE IN ANTICIPATION OF SETTLEMENT: this action is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice to the right of the parties to secure reinstatement of the case within ninety (90) days after the date of this judgment by making a showing that the settlement was not, in fact, consummated; and in the event that no request is made for reinstatement within ninety (90) days of the date of this judgment. (lmw)

September 28, 2010

Filing 122 DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 121) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in part. ORDERED that the Defendants' motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 102, 107) are GRANTED in part and DENIED i n part. ORDERED that all the claims asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) are DISMISSED from this action except for Plaintiff's First Amendment claim that Defendants Hanmer, Murphy, and Nowicki denied him the right to pray. ORDER ED that the clerk shall terminate Defendants Allen, Rowe, Valezquez, Benbow, Johnson, Walsh, Farnum, Debroize, Forshee, Barboza, Capolo and Becker from this action. ORDERED that the clerk of the Court shall appoint pro bono counsel for plaintiff for purposes of trial, and as soon as pro bono counsel has been appointed, the Court will schedule a pretrial conference to set a trial date in this action. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/28/10. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)

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: Abdul-Matiyn v. Pataki et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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?