Alli v. Steward-Bowden et al
| Umar Alli |
| Steward-Bowden, Victor, Arkhurst, Dixon, Alceus, Prison Health Services, Health Care Provider and Kathleen Munley |
| 1:2011cv04952 |
| June 23, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Queens |
| Unassigned |
| 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
233
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons the Court finds that the reasonable number of hours the plaintiff's counsel expended in connection with his motion to compel and the defendants' motion for a protective order is 12, and the re asonable hourly rate for each attorney who worked on the motions is $300. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to $3,600, in reasonable attorney's fees, to be paid by the defendants. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 12/17/2013) (tn)
|
|
Filing
171
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER terminating 155 Motion to Set Aside. On the non-dispositive application for a separate trial on the Monell claim and an ancillary stay, the Magistrate Judge's order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and the Court declines to modify it. The objection is therefore overruled. (Docket # 155.) The Magistrate Judge retains the authority to consider whether to grant (1) a stay in whole or in part of discovery on the Monell claims; or (2) a protective order limiting discovery as presenting an undue or unwarranted burden. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/17/2013) (ja)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the foregoing reasons, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. (Docket # 53.) The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion, which is captioned as a motion for reconsideration. (Docket # 32.)So Ordered (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/25/2012) (js)
|
|
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: On May 17, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as further set forth in this order. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration includes, as an exhibit, his motion for judgment by default, which was returned to him by the Pro Se Office on April 30, 2012, as well as his arguments concerning: (i) the defendants' failure to answer timely; and (ii) the lack of good cause to set aside the default, pursuant to Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Since the Court did not deny the plaintiff's motion for judgment by default, no basis exists for the plaintiff's reconsideration motion. The Court inter prets the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration liberally, see Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994), and deems it a motion to strike the defendants' answer and for judgment by default. Therefore, (1) on or before June 25, 20 12, the defendants shall serve and file their response to the motion; and (2) on or before July 9, 2012, the plaintiff may serve and file any reply., ( Responses due by 6/25/2012., Replies due by 7/9/2012.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 6/11/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (lmb)
|
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.
