Toliver v. Dept. of Corrections et al
| Michel Toliver |
| Dept. of Corrections, Commissioner of the Department, Chief of the Department, Warden of G.R.V.C., Captain Presley, D.O.C. Officer Bentlon/Button# (male), D.O.C. Captain Banks # (male) and D.O.C. Officer Cun Brown |
| 1:2010cv05806 |
| August 2, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Queens |
| Sidney H. Stein |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
137
ORDER: Having reviewed de novo the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Toliver has objected, the Court: (1) overrules plaintiff's objections; (2) denies plaintiff's request for an extension of time to submit further objections; (3) adopts in full the Report and Recommendation dated June 4, 2014; and (4) dismisses this action. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 6/24/2014) (kgo)
|
|
Filing
134
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 54 Amended Complaint, filed by Michel Toliver. For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the defendant's motion be granted and the action be dismissed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) and Rul es 72, 6(a), and 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from this date to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with ext ra copies delivered to the chambers of the Honorable Sidney H. Stein, Room 1010, and to the chambers of the undersigned, Room 1960, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. Failure to file timely objections will preclude appellate review. Objections to R&R due by 6/23/2014(Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 6/4/2014) Copies Mailed By Chambers (djc)
|
|
Filing
123
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Francis's Report & Recommendation is adopted; and 2. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment [doc. no. 102] is granted as to (1) plaintiff's excessive force and failure to i ntervene claims as against Captain Pressley, Captain Banks, and Officer McArdle, (2) plaintiff's deliberate indifference to medical need claims as against all defendants, and (3) plaintiff's destruction of property claim as against all defe ndants, and denied as to plaintiff's state law claims insofar as they relate to plaintiff's claim of excessive force by Officer Burton. re: 119 Report and Recommendations, 102 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by McArdle, Banks, Pressley, Burton, Motions terminated: 102 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by McArdle, Banks, Pressley, Burton. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 2/11/2014) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
119
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 102 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by McArdle, Banks, Pressley, Burton: For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment be granted in part and denied in p art. Specifically, I recommend that the motion be granted as to (1) Mr. Toliver's excessive force and failure to intervene claims as against Captain Pressley, Captain Banks, and Officer McArdle, (2) his deliberate indifference to medical need cl aim as against all defendants, and (3) his destruction of property claim as against all defendants. However, I recommend that the motion be denied as to state law claims insofar as they relate to his claim of excessive force by Officer Burton. Pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) and Rules 72, 6(a), and 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from this date to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Such objections shall be f iled with the Clerk of the Court, with extra copies delivered to the chambers of the Honorable Sidney H. Stein, U.S.D.J., Room 1010, and to the chambers of the undersigned, Room 1960, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. Failure to file timely objections will preclude appellate review. Objections to R&R due by 12/27/2013 (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 12/10/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (tn)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER: This Court has received plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation, all dated October 7, 2012 and all filed on October 15, 2012 (Dkt. Nos. 85-86, 88-89), and defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff' s objection dated November 5, 2012 (Dkt. No. 90). After a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation dated September 25, 2012, plaintiffs objections dated October 7, 2012, and defendants' opposition dated November 5, 2012, it is hereby orde red that: 1) Magistrate Judge Francis's Report and Recommendation is adopted in full substantially for the reasons set forth therein; and 2) Defendants the City of New York, the Commissioner of N.Y.C. Dep't of Corrections, Chief of N.Y.C. D ep't of Corrections, and Warden of G.R.V.C. (09-09 Hazen St.) are dismissed from this action. Toliver has stated that defendants Banks and McArdle have been served with summonses and the Second Amended Complaint. However, the docket in this acti on does not reflect any such service ofprocess. If defendants Banks and McArdle have been served, plaintiff shall file proofs of their service by March 15, 2013. If either defendant Banks or McArdle have not been served, defendant must complete service and file proof of service by March 15, 2013. Failure to serve these defendants by this date will result in their dismissal from this action. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 1/11/2013) (ft)
|
|
Filing
52
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 44 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. filed by City of New York. The Court hereby notifies plaintiff that any previous fi lings by plaintiff do not constitute the Second A mended Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to file a Second Amended Complaint correcting the fatal deficiencies set forth in the Court's July 26, 2011 Memorandum Order (dkt. no. 30), even if that means plaintiff must re-file whatever document he bel ieves he has already submitted that constitutes the Second Amended Complaint, because the Court is unable to determine what that is. Plaintiff must file his Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of receipt of this Opinion and Order. If pla intiff does not comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41 (b) for failure to prosecute. After plaintiff files a Second Amended Complaint, the Clerk of Court is ordered to issue a second amended summons so that any defe ndant who has not yet been served in this action can be served.F or the reasons set forth above, the motion by the City of New York to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 41 (b) for failure to prosecute is denied.(Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 2/1/2012) (pl) Modified on 2/1/2012 (pl).
|
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 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.
