Lewis v. Stanton

Lewis v. Stanton

Plaintiff:	Reuben Lewis
Defendant:	Stanton
Case Number:	9:2013cv01172
Filed:	September 20, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Prisoner Office
County:	Oneida
Presiding Judge:	Therese Wiley Dancks
Presiding Judge:	Lawrence E. Kahn
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
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
December 29, 2016	Filing 103 ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 101 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 88 ) is DENIED. ORDERED, that any claims against the remaining John Doe Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 12/29/16. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )
July 7, 2014	Filing 23 ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendant's Partial Motion (Dkt. No. 13 ) to dismiss is GRANTED. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's (i) federal and state law claims against Defendant in his official capacity, and (ii) state law claims against Defendant in his personal capacity are DISMISSED without leave to amend. ORDERED, that Defendant must respond to Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against him in his personal capacity in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 7/7/14. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 29, 2016

Filing 103 ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 101 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 88 ) is DENIED. ORDERED, that any claims against the remaining John Doe Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 12/29/16. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

July 7, 2014

Filing 23 ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendant's Partial Motion (Dkt. No. 13 ) to dismiss is GRANTED. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's (i) federal and state law claims against Defendant in his official capacity, and (ii) state law claims against Defendant in his personal capacity are DISMISSED without leave to amend. ORDERED, that Defendant must respond to Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against him in his personal capacity in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 7/7/14. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(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: Lewis v. Stanton
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Reuben Lewis
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Stanton
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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?