Davidson v. Lee et al
| Ronald Davidson |
| Chung Shuk Lee, Susan Mueller, Carl J. Koenigsmann and John and Jane Does |
| 7:2017cv09820 |
| December 14, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Vincent L. Briccetti |
| 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
99
OPINION & ORDER re: 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Susan Mueller, Chung Shuk Lee, Carl J. Koenigsmann. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully di rected to send a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff, terminate the pending motion, (ECF No. 83), enter judgment for Defendants, and close the case. The Clerk shall mail to Plaintiff at 411 E. 178th Street, Apt. 603, Bronx, NY 10457 and 600 E. 179th Street, Apt. 203, Bronx, NY 10457. (Signed by Judge Cathy Seibel on 11/1/2021) (mml) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER: Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 1. To the extent plaintiff contends that I should recuse myself because I cannot be fair and impartial or that my presiding over the case would give rise to an appearance of impropriety, that contention i s rejected. Thus, plaintiff's motion is DENIED. 2. However, in the interest of justice, the Court will recuse itself sua sponte, so as to ensure that the presiding judge is not someone whom plaintiff suspects harbors ill will or prejudice tow ard him. This case shall be randomly reassigned to another judge in the White Plains courthouse. 3. The stay of discovery will continue. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order 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, 44445 (1962). (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 3/25/2020) (rj)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER: With respect to the conference in this matter scheduled for March 25, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., plaintiff and counsel for defendants shall attend by calling the following number and entering the access code when requested: Number: (888) 363-4749 (toll-free) or (215) 446-3662; Access Code: 1703567. The parties should be on the line by 2:30 p.m. and announce their names before speaking. In the event plaintiff has retained counsel by March 25, 2020 conference, counsel shall attend by using above call-in procedure. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 3/25/2020 at 02:30 PM before Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.) (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 3/18/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER: Accordingly, the conference scheduled for February 24, 2020, is adjourned to March 25, 2020, at 2:30 p.m. In the future, plaintiff must comply with Paragraph 1.G of Judge Briccetti's Individual Practices when requesting an adjournment. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 3/25/2020 at 02:30 PM before Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.) (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 2/20/2020) (mml) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER re: 60 Notice (Other) filed by Ronald Davidson: Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court DEFERS RULING on plaintiff's motion for the Court to recuse itself. 2. By February 7, 2020, plaintiff shall file a letter (i) explaining w hy he missed today's conference without excuse or explanation; and (ii) providing further detail regarding his motion for the Court to recuse itself. The Court has no recollection of the incidents described in plaintiff's affidavit. Therefo re, plaintiff shall provide in the letter any details he can about the incidents, including the names of anyone involved, the docket number, the judge assigned to the case, other attorneys assigned to the case, or any other particulars that would be helpful to the Court. 3. The January 17, 2020, conference is adjourned to February 24, 2020, at 12:30 p.m. 4. If plaintiff fails to file the above letter by February 7, 2020, or fails to appear in person or through counsel at the February 24, 2020, c onference, the Court may dismiss this case for failure to prosecute or comply with Court Orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order 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). (Status Conference set for 2/24/2020 at 12:30 PM before Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.) (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 1/17/2020) (jwh) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
28
OPINION AND ORDER re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Susan Mueller, Chung Shuk Lee, Carl J. Koenigsmann. The motion to dismiss or transfer is DENIED. Defendants shall file an answer to the complaint by December 3, 2018. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #16). SO ORDERED. John and Jane Does answer due 12/3/2018; Carl J. Koenigsmann answer due 12/3/2018; Chung Shuk Lee answer due 12/3/2018; Susan Mueller answer due 12/3/2018. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 11/19/2018) (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.
