Owens v. Clark et al
| Jayshawn Owens |
| Christian Clark, Vladislav Voss, John Doe and Jane Doe |
| 9:2016cv00097 |
| January 26, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Prisoner Office |
| Jefferson |
| Daniel J. Stewart |
| 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
55
DECISION AND ORDER granting # 36 Defendant Clark's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting # 47 CMC Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/29/17. (lmw)
|
|
Filing
17
DECISION AND ORDER granting # 11 Defendant Voss' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical-indifference claim against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Voss is dismissed, and Defendant Voss is terminated from this action. Plaintiff is reminded of his duty to take reasonable steps to identify the John Doe Defendant and Jane Doe Defendant named in his Complaint, seek to amend his Complaint to identify them, and serve them with process. This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Stewart for a Rule 16 conference and the setting of pretrial scheduling deadlines. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 10/21/16. (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.
