Kenyon v. Weber et al
| William E. Kenyon |
| Joe Weber, ? Bishop, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, Laskowski, Abbey and Rao |
| 6:2016cv06510 |
| July 21, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Rochester Office |
| Seneca |
| Frank P. Geraci |
| 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
56
DECISION AND ORDER: Defendants' 54 Bill of Costs is GRANTED and Defendants are awarded $560.16. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the judgment entered in this case to include the $560.16 in costs.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 10/9/2019. A copy of the NEF and Decision and Order were mailed to Plaintiff. (AFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
|
|
Filing
52
DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 45 , is GRANTED. 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 ther efore denies leave to appeal as a poor person. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Plaintiff should direct requests to proceed on appeal as a poor person to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on motion in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendants and close this case.. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 9/10/19. A copy of this Decision and Order and Notice of Electronic Filing have been mailed to Plaintiff. (JO)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER denying 40 Motion; denying 47 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 3/11/19. (This order and entry were mailed to pro se plaintiff.) (BJJ)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER denying 29 without prejudice to renew Motion to Appoint Counsel and denying 37 Motion to Adjourn Deposition. A copy of the Order has been mailed to pro se plaintiff. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 6/5/18. (NNR)
|
|
Filing
15
DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's claim that Defendants Schunk, Dr. Laskowski, Dr. Abbey, Dr. Rao, and Bradt were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs is dismissed with prejudice.Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 13 is DENIE D as to Defendants Weber, Krakowski, and Bradt and GRANTED as to Defendant Bishop.Defendants Weber, Krakowski, and Bradt are the sole remaining Defendants in this case. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all other Defendants. The sole rem aining cause of action is Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim for the dangerous workplace condition.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 12/21/2017.A copy of this NEF and Decision and Order has been mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. (AFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the Caption of this action to name M. Bradt, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, in the plac e of John Doe #3; Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint only as directed above by April 21, 2017; the Clerk of Court is directed to send to Plaintiff with this Order a copy of the original Complaint, a blank § 1983 complaint fo rm, and the instructions for preparing anamended complaint; (see order for further information). Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 3/20/17. (Copy of order and forms listed above mailed to plaintiff and a copy of this order emailed to Ted O'Brien) (TF)
|
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.
