Rodriguez v. County Of Westchester et al.
| Brandon Rodriguez |
| County Of Westchester, Correct Care Solutions LLC, New York Correct Care Solutions Medical Services PC, Dolores Curbelo M.D., Janel Sewell, Maria Nestro, City of New York, Corizon Health Inc., Captain Richardson, Daniel Ashity and Steven Santiago |
| 1:2015cv09626 |
| December 9, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Westchester |
| Paul A. Engelmayer |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 vc Fed. Question: Violation of Constitutional Rights |
| Both |
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
82
OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part. The Court dismisses all § 1983 claims against Curbelo and Santiago and all § 1983 municipal liability claims again st Westchester, CCS, and NYCCS. However, the Court denies the motions to dismiss the § 1983 claims against Sewell and Nestro and denies the motions to dismiss Rodriguez's state claims. The Court directs the parties to confer with each ot her and to file, by Monday, January 23, 2017, a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules. (As further set forth in this Opinion & Order.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/11/2017) (mro)
|
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.
