Valentin v. City of Rochester et al
| Hector L. Valentin |
| City of Rochester, James Sheppard, David Moore, Rochester Police Department, Michael Cotsworth, Dave Mace, Joseph Murphy, Paul Walther, Blaho, Adorante, Holmes, Hoke, Monroe County, Monroe County District Attorney's Office, Michael Green, Howard Relin, Daniel Majchrzak, Patrick Fierro, John Munro, John Marchioni, Wendy Sisca and Casper Caceci |
| 6:2011cv06238 |
| May 3, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Rochester Office |
| Monroe |
| Charles J. Siragusa |
| Other 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
157
DECISION AND ORDER granting 84 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 138 Motion to Amend or Correct; granting 151 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 151 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This entire action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 10/24/18. Copy of this NEF and decision and order mailed to pro se plaintiff at 4084 Dewey Avenue, Rochester, NY 14616 (KAP)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
|
|
Filing
146
DECISION & ORDER Valentin's motion to amend 138 to add Sullivan as a defendant is denied. This Court further rejects the County Defendants' position that Valentin's motion to add Rodriquez as a defendant is futile as time-barred. The remainder of Valentin's motion to amend 138 will be considered by the district court in connection with its determination of defendants' pending dispositive motions. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 9/30/2016. Copy of Decision & Order sent by First Class Mail to plaintiff Hector L. Valentin on 9/30/2016. (KAH)
|
|
Filing
132
DECISION & ORDER Valentin's motions for sanctions 112 , 113 are denied. The City and County Defendants are directed to provide affidavits in accordance with this decision by no later than 10/19/2015. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 9/25/2015. Copy of Decision & Order sent by First Class Mail to plaintiff Hector L. Valentin on 9/25/2015. (KAH)
|
|
Filing
123
DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint 87 is denied without prejudice. Should plaintiff wish to file a motion to amend the complaint, he must do so by no later than 4/10/2015, and such motion must comply with the Court's directives set forth herein. Plaintiff's motion seeking a determination of a "question of law" 92 is denied. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 3/12/2015. (KAH)
|
|
Filing
101
DECISION & ORDER Valentin's motions to compel and for sanctions 45 , 55 , 67 , 80 , 81 are granted in part and denied in part. Further, the County Defendants' motion for a protective order 53 is granted in part and denied in part. T he City and County Defendants are directed to provide discovery responses and produce any responsive documents in accordance with this decision by no later than 11/7/2014. In the event that the parties believe that discovery has not been completed and should be extended, they are directed to confer and submit to this Court in writing a joint proposed amended scheduling order by no later than 10/17/2014. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 9/26/2014. (KAH)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER Valentin's motion to compel 32 is granted in part and denied in part. The County and City defendants are directed to respond to the 4/17/2013 discovery demands by no later than 4/21/2014. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 3/6/2014. (KAH)
|
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.
