Griffin-Nolan v. City of Syracuse et al

Filing 50

BENCH DECISION & ORDER: granting in part and denying in part the # 39 Motion for Summary Judgment as follows 1) Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against Officers Mullen and Hennessey for denying him his First Amendment right to be free from reta liation is DISMISSED with prejudice; 2) Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against the City of Syracuse for denying him his First Amendment right to be free from retaliation is DISMISSED with prejudice; 3) Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against the City of Syracuse for failing to adequately train Officers Mullen, Hennessey, and Cecile is DISMISSED with prejudice; 4) Plaintiff's New York State common law claim against all Defendants for malicious prosecution, and his New York State com mon law claim against Officer Hennessey for libel, are DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in New York State Court within 30 days of this Order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d); 5) Plaintiff's claim for attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S .C. § 1988 is DISMISSED with prejudice; further Ordered that Plaintiff's # 1 Complaint is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety; the Clerk of the Court shall enter a judgment and close this action. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/23/09. (Attachments: # 1 Court Exhibit to Bench Decision) (jmb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ EDWARD P. GRIFFIN-NOLAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE; DANIEL CECILE Police Officer; JAMES MULLEN, Police Officer; and DAVID HENNESSEY, Police Officer, Defendants. __________________________________________ APPEARANCES: LAW OFFICE OF MAIREAD E. CONNOR Counsel for Plaintiff 440 South Warren Street, Suite 703 Syracuse, NY 13202 HON. RORY A. McMAHON Corporation Counsel for the City of Syracuse Counsel for Defendants 233 East Washington Street, Room 301 Syracuse, NY 13202 HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge ORDER Currently before the Court in this civil rights action filed by Edward P. Griffin-Nolan ("Plaintiff") is a motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Syracuse, and Syracuse Police Officers Daniel Cecile, James Mullen, and David Hennessey ("Defendants"). (Dkt. No. 39.) On June 23, 2009, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants' motion, and issued a bench decision granting the motion. At that time, the Court indicated that a written Order would follow. This is that Order. The Court having carefully considered the parties' motion papers and argument on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, it is OF COUNSEL: MAIREAD E. CONNOR, ESQ. 5:04-CV-1453 (GTS/GJD) JOSEPH FRANCIS BERGH, ESQ. Assistant Corporation Counsel ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all of Plaintiff's claims (Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in the following respects: (1) Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against Officers Mullen and Hennessey for denying him his First Amendment right to be free from retaliation is DISMISSED with prejudice; (2) Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against the City of Syracuse for denying him his First Amendment right to be free from retaliation is DISMISSED with prejudice; (3) Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against the City of Syracuse for failing to adequately train Officers Mullen, Hennessey, and Cecile is DISMISSED with prejudice; (4) Plaintiff's New York State common law claim against all Defendants for malicious prosecution, and his New York State common law claim against Officer Hennessey for libel, are DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in New York State Court within THIRTY (30) DAYS of this Order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(d); and (5) Plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter a judgment accordingly and close this action. Dated: June 23, 2009 Syracuse, New York 2

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?