Shapard v. Attea et al
| Christopher Shapard |
| John Attea, Edwin Mendez, Robert Kyle, Al Herdzik, Martin Kearney, Anthony Zon, Robert Kirkpatrick, Thomas Schoellkopf and Donald Selsky |
| 6:2008cv06146 |
| April 2, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Rochester Office |
| Cayuga |
| Charles J. Siragusa |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Both |
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
110
DECISION AND ORDER denying 103 Motion for Reconsideration re 103 MOTION for Reconsideration re 100 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, MOTION to Amend/Correct 101 Judgment , or, in the alternative, to grant Plain tiff leave to file an amended complaint filed by Christopher Shapard ; denying 103 Motion to Amend or Correct. Defendants application for reconsideration [#103] is denied. The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), tha t any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Further requests to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis should be directed on motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 10/7/16. (KAP)
|
|
Filing
100
-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-DECISION AND ORDER denying 92 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants application [#92] is denied, and this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey. The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Further requests to proceed on appeal in forma p auperis should be directed on motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 7/25/16. (KAP)
|
|
Filing
85
DECISION AND ORDER granting 79 Motion for Discovery. Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery [#79] is granted. Counsel for the parties are directed to confer regarding a schedule for the completion of expert discovery, and Plaintiffs counsel is directed, within ten (10) days of the date of this Decision and Order, to submit a proposed scheduling order. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 3/2/15. (KAP)
|
|
Filing
75
DECISION AND ORDER denying 69 Motion to Compel. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 9/5/14. (KAP)
|
|
Filing
58
DECISION AND ORDER granting 47 Motion for Summary Judgment for defendants Schoellkoph and Selsky and the claims against them are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 11/30/11. (KAP)
|
|
Filing
28
DECISION AND ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss; denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Herdzik, Kirkpatrick, Zon, and Kearney as parties to this action. By separate order the Court will refer this case to a United States Magistrate Judge, who will conduct a scheduling conference and oversee discovery and all other non-dispositive pre-trial matters. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 11/16/09. (KAP)
|
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 Western 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.
