Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility
Plaintiff: Shirley Dimps
Defendant: Taconic Correctional Facility
Case Number: 7:2017cv08806
Filed: November 13, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: White Plains Office
Presiding Judge: Nelson Stephen Roman
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS 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
April 3, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 126 OPINION & ORDER re: 114 MOTION to Dismiss in part. filed by NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision., NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision answer due 4/24/2024. For the foregoing reasons, the De fendant's partial motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims of hostile work environment and retaliation brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. are dismissed with prejudice. Defen dants are directed to file an answer on or before April 24, 2024. The parties are also directed to submit a Case Management Plan (attached) on or before May 13, 2024. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 114. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Opinion & Order to pro se Plaintiff at the address listed on ECF and to show service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 4/3/2024) (ks)
July 27, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 108 ORDER: denying 106 Motion for Recusal. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to recuse. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 106. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this order to pro se Plaintiff at the address on the docket and show service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 7/27/2023) (ama)
May 10, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 99 ORDER terminating 98 Motion re: 98 MOTION.. For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to amend her pleadings in order to assert ADA, ADEA, Section 1981 violations against individu al DOCCS supervisors and/or DOCCS. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's request for pro bono counsel, without prejudice to renew at a later time. Lastly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to Plaintiff's request to add her paragraph to the Statement of Facts as specified in her May 8, 2023 letter docketed at ECF No. 97, but warns that Plaintiff may not continue to attempt to amend her complaint in a piecemeal manner moving forward. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at the address listed on ECF, show service on the docket, and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 98. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 5/10/2023) (tro)
March 15, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER In light of Plaintiff's response, the Court VACATES the Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to provide an update to the Court, in writing, on or before April 5, 2023 indicating whether she plans on filing a Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide a copy of this order to pro se Plaintiff at the address indicated on the docket. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 3/15/2023) (jca)
March 25, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 73 OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant CSEA's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 2 Plaintiffs attempt to file a Second Amended Complaint is denied. By Opinion dated March 20, 2019, the Court dismissed all claims asse1ied against Ta conic, DOCCS and DCS. (ECF No.71.) The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 22, to terminate the action, and to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff and to show proof on the docket of said mailing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 3/25/2019) (ks) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
March 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 71 OPINION & ORDER re: 49 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Taconic Correctional Facility, NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, 56 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by NYS Dept. of Civil Service. For the foregoin g reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety. All claims asserted against Defendants DOCCS, Taconic and DSC are deemed dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 49 a nd 56, to mail a copy of this Opinion to pro se Plaintiff, and to show proof of service on the docket. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 3/20/2019) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
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: Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Shirley Dimps
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: Taconic Correctional Facility
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?