Nelson v. Plumley et al
| Jeffrey A. Nelson |
| Bruce Plumley, Jeffrey Spear, Jean Berggern, S. Gialani, Joanne Waldron, Lester Wright and John E. Miller |
| 9:2012cv00422 |
| March 8, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Prisoner Office |
| Franklin |
| David E. Peebles |
| Thomas J. McAvoy |
| 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
90
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Defendants' objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 85 , are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 83 , is hereby ADOPTED, and the Court finds that t he Plaintiff's excessive force claim is not barred by the PLRA based upon Plaintiff's exhaustion of available administrative remedies before commencing suit; and the Court will set the matter down for trial by separate order. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 7/14/15. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)
|
|
Filing
61
DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections, dkt. # 60 , to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 59 , are hereby OVERRULED; The 59 Report-Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED; The Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 49 , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim. The motion is DE NIED with leave to renew with respect to Defendants' claim that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on all of his claims. An evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedie s with respect to his remaining excessive-force claim against Defendants Plumley and Spear. Defendants may renew their motion following this hearing; and the case is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Peebles to conduct an evidentiary hearing on exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge should also consider Plaintiff's request to have counsel appointed to represent him at that hearing. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/17/14. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )
|
|
Filing
34
DECISION AND ORDER: The 32 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 25 ) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff's damage claims against all of defendants in their official ca pacities are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claims for deliberate medical indifference against defendants Berggern, Galani, and Wright, and all his claims against defendant Waldron, in their individual capacities, are dismissed without pr ejudice to re - pleading. ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 25 ) is DENIED as it relates to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim asserted against defendant Berggern and Galani in their individua l capacities. ORDERED that plaintiff's procedural due process cause of action, arising from the disciplinary hearing conducted by defendant Miller, is DISMISSED unless, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order, plaintiff notifies the Court and defendants' counsel, in writing, of his abandonment, for all time, of any claim associated with the duration of his confinement arising from the disciplinary proceeding conducted by defendant Miller. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 3/18/13. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)
|
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.
