Atkins v. Menard et al
| Michael Atkins |
| John Doe #4, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, D. Menard, B. Hayes, Russell, L. Martin, Moak, Allen and John Doe #1 |
| 9:2011cv00366 |
| April 4, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Prisoner Office |
| Franklin |
| David E. Peebles |
| Glenn T. Suddaby |
| 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
43
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Peebles' # 41 Report-Recommendation and granting # 34 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim against Defenda nt Allen. It is ORDERED that Pro Bono Counsel be appointed for the Plaintiff for purposes of trial only; any appeal shall remain the responsibility of the plaintiff alone unless a motion for appointment of counsel for an appeal is granted; and it is further ORDERED that upon assignment of Pro Bono Counsel, a final pretrial conference with counsel will be scheduled in this action, at which time the Court will schedule for trial Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Defendants Menard, Hayes, Russell, Martin and Moak. The parties are directed to appear at the final pretrial conference with settlement authority. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/12/12. (lmw)
|
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.
