Moustapha v. The Metropolitan Correctional Center et al
Plaintiff: Magassouba Moustapha
Defendant: James N. Cross, K. Cho, Michael J. Garcia, Fields, John Doe, Goldson Hugh, Thomas Garfield, Barris Larry and D. Scott
Case Number: 1:2008cv04560
Filed: May 16, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Richard J. Holwell
Presiding Judge: Henry B. Pitman
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
December 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 111 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION for 107 Report and Recommendations: The Report is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff's application for an order to show cause, a preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order, and an order directing defend ants to post security is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff's application shall be construed instead as an application for expedited discovery and defendants are ordered to submit their responses by January 31, 2013, if they have not so already. ( Responses due by 1/31/2013.) (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 12/27/2012) (lmb)
November 30, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 59 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 52 MOTION to Withdraw, MOTION for Leave to File filed by Magassouba Moustapha. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Pitman's well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation in its e ntirety. Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss 30 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's lost-property claim against Pena is dismissed with prejudice; all other claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling. If plaintiff refiles a new complain t, he is cautioned that a subsequent deficient pleading in the new complaint will result in dismissal with prejudice, as he has already had multiple opportunities to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's application to with draw the January 14, 2010 and February 17, 2010 Amended Complaints is GRANTED, but the Court DENIES the motion to amend his complaint 52 as futile. The Clerk of the Court is requested to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Holwell on 11/30/2010) (jmi)
March 19, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 49 Report and Recommendations, 30 Motion to Dismiss; 47 Motion to Withdraw, Motion for Leave to File Document; 34 Motion for Leave to File Document. Finding no clear error, the Court hereby adopts Judge Pitman's Report, which is notably thorough and well-reasoned. Plaintiff's federal claims against defendants Pena are dismissed with prejudice, and all other federal claims are dismissed without prejudice to renewal after plaintiff ha s exhausted administrative remedies. In light of the dismissal of all federal claims, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is requested to close this case. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Holwell on 3/19/2010) (tro)
March 1, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 49 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend that defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket Item 30) be granted. I recommend that plaintiffs' claims against defendant Pena be dismissed with pr ejudice and that plaintiff's remaining claims against the Federal Defendants be dismissed without prejudice. I further recommend that plaintiff's motion to amend (Docket Item 47) be denied without prejudice and that plaintiff's applica tion to withdraw his April 2009 motion (Docket Item 34) be granted. I further recommend that plaintiff's common law claims be dismissed as a matter of discretion. Finally, I note that although plaintiff is entitled to leniency because of his pro se status, he has now made three attempts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, I recommend that plaintiff be cautioned that if his next attempt at pleading is equally deficient, his case may be dismissed with prejudice. Failure to object within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review. Objections to R&R due by 3/18/2010 (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 3/1/2010) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(jpo)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Moustapha v. The Metropolitan Correctional Center et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Magassouba Moustapha
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: James N. Cross
Represented By: Jean-David Barnea
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: K. Cho
Represented By: Jean-David Barnea
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: Michael J. Garcia
Represented By: Jean-David Barnea
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: Fields
Represented By: Jean-David Barnea
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: John Doe
Represented By: Jean-David Barnea
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: Goldson Hugh
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: Thomas Garfield
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: Barris Larry
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: D. Scott
Represented By: Jean-David Barnea
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?