Eady v. Lappin et al

Filing 85

ORDER that 84 Report and Recommendations is adopted in entirety. ORDERED granting in part and denying in part 79 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue on 10/21/09. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________ DELTA L. EADY, Plaintiff, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, et al., Defendants. ________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: DELTA L. EADY Plaintiff pro se HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Counsel for Defendants CHARLES E. ROBERTS, ESQ. OF COUNSEL: N A M 9:05-CV-0824 NORMAN A. MORDUE, CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER The above matter comes to me following a Report-Recommendation by Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe, duly filed on the 30th day of September 2009. Following ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent me the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein. After careful review of all of the papers herein, including the Magistrate Judge's ReportRecommendation, and no objections submitted thereto, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report-Recommendation is hereby adopted in its entirety. 2. The Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 79) is granted in part and denied in part. All of Plaintiff's claims are dismissed except: (1) the allegations against Defendant Stone in Paragraphs 155-59 of the complaint; (2) the allegations against Defendants Hays and Holts in Paragraphs 56-61 of the complaint; and (3) the allegation against Defendant Miller in Paragraph 242 of the complaint. Defendants are ordered to answer those claims. 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon all parties and the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 21, 2009 Syracuse, New York A M N 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?