Corley v. United States of America

Corley v. United States of America

Plaintiff:	Royce Corley
Defendant:	United States Of America
Case Number:	1:2016cv07616
Filed:	September 29, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	XX Out of State
Presiding Judge:	Kevin Nathaniel Fox
Presiding Judge:	William H. Pauley
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
September 27, 2016	Filing 97 ORDER ADOPTING 94 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Plaintiff's objections are REJECTED and Judge Gold's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff 9;s Cross-Motion is DENIED. In summary: Count IV is hereby SEVERED and TRANSFERRED to the Southern District ofNew York. The following claims survive Defendants' Motion: In Counts I, II, and IV, the FTCA claims against the United States; an d In Counts V, VI, VII, IX, and X, the Bivens claims against Individual Defendants in their individual capacity related to events that allegedly occurred at the: MDC, except insofar as such claims are barred under the Public Health Service Act. All other claims are DISMISSED. The parties are DIRECTED to schedule a status conference with Judge Gold to discuss outstanding discovery needs on the surviving claims. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 9/27/2016. (c/m to pro se) (Lee, Tiffeny) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 9/29/2016.]

Date Filed

Document Text

September 27, 2016

Filing 97 ORDER ADOPTING 94 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Plaintiff's objections are REJECTED and Judge Gold's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff 9;s Cross-Motion is DENIED. In summary: Count IV is hereby SEVERED and TRANSFERRED to the Southern District ofNew York. The following claims survive Defendants' Motion: In Counts I, II, and IV, the FTCA claims against the United States; an d In Counts V, VI, VII, IX, and X, the Bivens claims against Individual Defendants in their individual capacity related to events that allegedly occurred at the: MDC, except insofar as such claims are barred under the Public Health Service Act. All other claims are DISMISSED. The parties are DIRECTED to schedule a status conference with Judge Gold to discuss outstanding discovery needs on the surviving claims. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 9/27/2016. (c/m to pro se) (Lee, Tiffeny) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 9/29/2016.]

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: Corley v. United States of America
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Royce Corley
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: United States Of America
Represented By:	Sharanya Mohan
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?