Palermo v. Edmark et al

Filing 3

ORDER re 1 Complaint: claims as identified by plaintiff are cognizable. No further court action is required at this stage of the proceedings. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(dae)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Christopher Palermo v. Civil No. 11-cv-506-JD Michael Edmark, et al. O R D E R Before the Court is Christopher Palermo’s complaint (doc. no. 1), filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his rights under federal law. Palermo is a prisoner represented by counsel who has paid his filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this Court must, in all civil actions “in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer of employee of a governmental entity,” review the complaint to identify cognizable claims or recommend dismissal of any claim in the complaint that either fails to state a claim upon which relief might be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (b). The Court is required to conduct such a screening in this matter. Because the complaint has been filed by counsel, and is clear in its recitation of factual allegations, there is no reason to restate the facts alleged therein. Further, the complaint succinctly sets out the claims for relief, and the facts alleged are sufficient to support a cause of action for the claims asserted. Accordingly, I find that the claims, as identified by plaintiff in the complaint, are cognizable. Waivers, with attachments, have been issued electronically to plaintiff to print and serve on defendants (doc. no. 2). further court action is required at this stage of the proceedings. SO ORDERED. _______________________________ Landya B. McCafferty United States District Court Date: November 3, 2011 cc: Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq. LBM:jba No

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?