Wheeler v. DeYoung et al
| Damon Wheeler |
| N. DeYoung, G. Neilson, Magsamen and The City of Middleton |
| 1:2016cv08857 |
| November 14, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Westchester |
| Nelson Stephen Roman |
| Civil Rights |
| 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
147
ORDER: The Court understands that the parties have reached a settlement in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed without costs to any party, and without prejudice to restoring the action to the Court's c alendar, provided the application is made within forty-five (45) days of this Order. Any application to reopen that is filed after forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order may be denied solely on that basis. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 5/23/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
145
CONFIDENTIALITY STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 5/17/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
129
SCHEDULING ORDER granting 128 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. This matter is hereby scheduled for a video settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. No later than two (2) busin ess days prior to the conference (i.e., by October 15, 2021), the parties must each submit a confidential, ex parte letter not to exceed five (5) pages in length. The letter must summarize (i) the history of settlement negotiations; (ii) the issue s in the case; (iii) the party's settlement valuation of the case and the rationale(s) for it; and (iv) any other facts that would be helpful to the Court in preparation for the conference. Submissions should be emailed to KrauseNYSDChambers @nysd.uscourts.gov. It is the Court's standard practice to require parties and not just counsel - to attend settlement conferences. As current or former municipal employees, however, Defendants DeYoung and Neilson are not required to appear personally. Instead, as discussed at the September 20, 2021 conference, defense counsel must arrange to have the appropriate decision-making representative of the relevant insurance carrier(s) participate in the conference via video. This conference will be conducted by video, using Microsoft Teams. A link and instructions will be provided to the parties by email prior to the conference. Should anyone experience any technical issues with the videoconferencing system, please c ontact Chambers at (914) 390-4070. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 128. SO ORDERED. Settlement Conference set for 10/19/2021 at 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 9/20/2021) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
127
ORDER: In order to facilitate the progress of pre-trial discovery of this litigation in a just, speedy and inexpensive manner, to ensure compliance with the case management plan, and to prevent the accumulation of unresolved discovery issues, the following procedures are to be followed for the resolution of discovery disputes: The party objecting to disclosure, claiming an insufficient response to a discovery request, or asserting a privilege bears the burden of coming forward by bringing the dispute to the attention of the Court as hereinafter set forth. In calculating when a dispute arises, the Court anticipates that the parties have complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, in that the discovery demand or disclosure at issue and the adversarys response have been served and further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 8/3/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
117
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 94 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Ronald Magsamen, George Neilson, The City of Middletown, Nathaniel DeYoung, Alex McManus. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims f or false arrest, unlawful search and seizure, deprivation of due process/fair trial, and abuse of process against defendants DeYoung and Neilson shall proceed. All other claims are dismissed. By June 15, 2021, defendants DeYoung and Neilson shall fil e an answer to the remaining claims in the AC. The Clerk is instructed to terminate defendants the City of Middletown and Sgt. Ronald Magsamen as defendants in this action. By separate Order, the Court will schedule an initial conference. The Clerk i s further instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #94). SO ORDERED., The City of Middletown, Ronald Magsamen (in their official capacity as Middletown Police Officers) and Ronald Magsamen (individually) terminated., Nathaniel DeYoung(individually) answer due 6/15/2021; George Neilson(individually) answer due 6/15/2021. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 6/01/2021) (ama)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER: By Order dated March 3, 2020, this Court directed plaintiff's counsel to confer with defense counsel and, by March 24, 2020, to either: (i) file a letter informing the Court that defendants consent to plaintiff's filing an amended complaint; or (ii) file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. #82). To date, plaintiff's counsel has not complied with the Court's March 3 Order. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: The Court sua sponte extends to April 2, 2020, plaintiff's time to comply with the Court's March 3 Order. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). SO ORDERED. (Motions due by 4/2/2020.) (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 3/26/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER: Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: The stay issued on November 14, 2017, in this matter is vacated and the case is restored to the active docket. By March 11, 2020, defendants shall answer the complaint, addressing plaintiff's remaining Section 1983 claims for unlawful search, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. By separate order, the Court will schedule an initial conference in this case. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Ord er would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purposes of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the ad dress on the docket. SO ORDERED., N. DeYoung answer due 3/11/2020; Magsamen answer due 3/11/2020; G. Neilson answer due 3/11/2020; The City of Middleton answer due 3/11/2020. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 2/26/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER: This action is stayed pending resolution of plaintiff's criminal appeal before the New York Court of Appeals. (See Doc. #37). On December 12, 2019, plaintiff, who is proceeding prose and in forma pauperis, notified the Court in writin g of the status of his criminal appeal. (Doc. #70). Accordingly, by April 30, 2020, and every 90 days thereafter, plaintiff shall inform the Court in writing of the status of his criminal appeal. No later than 14 days after the New York Court of Appe als resolves plaintiff's criminal appeal, plaintiff shall so inform the Court by letter. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 1/31/2020) (mml) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 36 Report and Recommendations, 20 Motion to Dismiss filed by The City of Middleton, Magsamen, G. Neilson, N. DeYoung. The R&R is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. With res pect to plaintiff's state law claims (if any), the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The state law claims (if any) are dismissed without prejudice to re-filing after the service of a notice of claim, to the extent service of the notice of claim is timely and the assertion of such state law claims is not barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. With respect to plaintiff's Section 1983 claims for unlawful search, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, plaintiff's criminal conviction for obstruction of governmental administration arising out of his arrest on April 26, 2014, would bar those claims. However, because the conviction is currently on appeal, all proceedings in this case are STAYED pending the outcome of the criminal appeal. To the extent the motion is based on defendants' assertion of res judicata and collateral estoppel, the motion is DENIED. By no later than December 29, 2017, plaintiff is ORDERED to inform the Court by letter of the status of his criminal appeal. In addition, by no later than 14 days after the resolution of the appeal, plaintiff is ORDERED to inform the Court of such resolution. Finally, plaintiff is reminded that he must promptly notify the Court in writing if his address changes. Failure to comply with these orders may result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from t his Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk is instructed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #20). So Ordered., (Case stayed.) (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 11/14/17) (yv)
|
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.
