Whitley v. Bowden et al
| Vidal Maurice Whitley |
| Adrian Bowden, NYS DOCCS, Orazio Bucolo and Hennesy |
| 1:2017cv03564 |
| May 11, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| 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
125
ORDER...., Motions terminated: 118 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Orazio Bucolo, Robert V. Bentivegna, Adrian Bowden. Based upon the foregoing, and viewing the record in its entirety, the Court finds that dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) is appropriate. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion sequence associated with Defendants' ; pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. 118) as moot, terminate this action, and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff to the address listed on the docket as well as the following two addresses: Vidal Whitley, 360 St. Paul Street, Apt. 413, R ochester, New York 14605; Vidal Whitley, 574 Joseph Center, Rochester, New York 14605. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 2/23/2021) (ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER: It is Plaintiff's obligation to provide the Court with an address for mail service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), but he has not done so. The Court therefore directs Plaintiff, within thirty days, to provide the Court with his new mailing address. The Court will dismiss this action without prejudice if Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with an address for service. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order, as well as a copy of the September 17, 2020 Order denying summary judgment without prejudice (Doc. 116), to Plaintiff at 360 St. Paul Street, Rochester, New York 14605. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 10/13/2020) (mml) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
116
ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal by formal motion 98 Motion for Summary Judgment. Based upon the foregoing, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice to refiling a motion in compliance with all applicab le rules. Should they be so advised, Defendants are directed to refile and serve their motion for summary judgment on or before October 30, 2020. Plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition, if any, on or before November 30, 2020. Defendants sha ll file and serve their reply, if any, on or before December 11, 2020. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion sequence (Doc. 98) and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 9/17/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
115
ORDER denying 113 Motion. This matter has recently been reassigned to me. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's letter motion (Doc. 113) and Defendants' response (Doc. 114). The application of the pro se Plaintiff is hereby DENIED. The re has previously been four adjournments granted to the plaintiff and the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas made it clear on March 4, 2020 that no further extensions would be granted, and that Plaintiff's opposition would be deemed fully submitted if not filed by March 31, 2020. (Doc. 112). Therefore, since the Plaintiff has failed to file a response, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is deemed fully submitted as of March 31, 2020. Defense counsel is instructed to mail a copy of said Order to the plaintiff and file proof of service thereof. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate the letter motion (Doc. 113). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 4/22/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER ADOPTING R&R for 79 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion is denied without prejudice to renew in the event of any future failure by Plaintiff to prosecute this Action. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending motion, (Dkt. No. 73), and to mail a copy of this Opinion to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 4/30/2019) (rro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
79
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons, I conclude, and respectfully recommend that Your Honor should conclude, that Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute should be denied, without prejudice in the event of any future failure by Plaintiff to prosecute the action. The undersigned does suggest to Plaintiff that after he is released from custody he should find a reliable means of receiving mail from the Court and from Defendants' counsel. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith on 4/4/2019) Objections to R&R due by 4/18/2019 (ks)
|
|
Filing
42
OPINION AND ORDER re: 31 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by Hennesy, Orazio Bucolo, Megan Wright, Robert V. Bentivegna, Adrian Bowden. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is g ranted in part and denied in part. The Court dismisses the claims against Wright and Hennesy, the § 1983 conspiracy claim, and the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. However, because this is the first adjudication of Plaintiff&# 039;s claims on the merits, the dismissal is without prejudice. See Terry v. Inc. Vill. Of Patchogue, 826 F.3d 631,633 (2d Cir. 2016) (explaining that "district judges should, as a general matter, liberally permit pro se litigants to amend thei r pleadings" unless "amendment would be futile"). Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he must do so within 30 days of this Opinion, addressing the deficiencies identified herein. The new amended complaint will replac e, not supplement, the complaint currently before the Court. It therefore must contain all of the claims and factual allegations Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider. The Court will not consider factual allegations raised in supplemental declaratio ns, affidavits, or letters. If Plaintiff fails to abide by the 30-day deadline, the dismissed claims could be dismissed with prejudice, and the case will go forward only on the Eighth Amendment claims against Bowden, Bucolo, and Bentivegna. The Cler k of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending motion, (Dkt. No. 31), and to mail a copy of this Opinion to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Party Hennesy and Megan Wright (Psychiatrist OMH) terminated. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 5/9/2018) (mml)
|
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.
