Thomas v. Waugh et al
| Errol Thomas |
| F. Waugh, DiCairano, Leifeld, Ronald D. Larkin, Cheryl Morris and Does |
| 9:2013cv00321 |
| March 21, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Prisoner Office |
| Ulster |
| Mae A. D'Agostino |
| Therese Wiley Dancks |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
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
131
DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 123 Motion in Limine. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 7/12/2018. (Copy served via regular mail on plaintiff)(ban)
|
|
Filing
93
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' 91 Report-Recommendation and Order is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 89 ) is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. ORDERS that Defendant F. Waugh be terminated as a party. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 3/27/18. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 64 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety for reasons set forth therein. ORDERED that Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendant Leifeld in his Second Amend ed Complaint (Dkt. No. 63) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims in his Second Amended Complaint for violation of his procedural and substantive due process rights, previously dismissed with prejudice by the Court (Dkt. No. 58), are STRICKEN. ORDERED that Defendants Waugh, Leifeld, Larkin, Morris, Antonelli, and Bly are directed to answer Plaintiff's claims under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and RLUIPA in the S econd Amended Complaint. ORDERED that Plaintiff's letter motion requesting that the Court direct the remaining Defendants to answer the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 67 ) is DENIED as moot. John N. Antonelli answer due 7/25/2016; Bly ans wer due 7/25/2016; Ronald D. Larkin answer due 7/25/2016; Leifeld answer due 7/25/2016; Cheryl Morris answer due 7/25/2016; F. Waugh answer due 7/25/2016. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 7/11/16. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
|
|
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting Report and Recommendations re 53 Report and Recommendations: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks 9; July 24, 2015 Report and Recommendation(Dkt. No. 53) is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 47) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's procedural and substantive due process claims, claims against Defendants DeCairano and Bellamy, and claims related to the proper functioning of the inmate grievance system are DISMIS SED with prejudice; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendant Leifeld is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 9/30/15. [copy mailed to plaintiff] (ban)
|
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.
