Anderson v. Kooi et al
Filing
45
DECISION and ORDER 41 Report and Recommendations. ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 43 ) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: All claims for damages against the defendants in their official capaciti es are dismissed; Defendants Kooi and Collette are granted summary judgment to the extend that plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim is based on treatment for pain; Defendants Kooi and Collette are denied summary judgment to the extend that the amended complaint alleges deliberate indifference based on rapid weight loss and the failure to provide nutritional supplements; Defendants Wright's summary judgment motion is granted, and all claims against him are dismissed; Defendant Pett igrass' summary judgment motion is granted, and all federal claims against him are dismissed; Jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim of defamation is declined and dismissed without prejudice; Defemdamt Kooi's and Collette's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is denied; ORDERED that The Clerk is directed to return the file to the Magistrate Judge for further scheduling and/or pretrial procedures. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 4/1/2011. (served plaintiff by regular mail)(mnc)
Anderson v. Kooi et al
Doc. 45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JAMES ANDERSON, Plaintiff, vs DOCTOR KOOI, Auburn Correctional Facility; LESTER WRIGHT; MS. COLLETTE, Assistant Medical Officer; and MICHAEL PETTIGRASS, Counselor, Auburn Correctional, Defendants. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APPEARANCES: JAMES ANDERSON Plaintiff, Pro Se 96-A-7820 Coxsackie Correctional Facility Box 999 Coxsackie, NY 12051 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Defendants Department of Law The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Plaintiff, James Anderson, commenced this civil rights action in December 2007, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Report-Recommendation dated January 24, 2011, the Honorable George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the C. HARRIS DAGUE, ESQ. Asst. Attorney General OF COUNSEL; 9:07-CV-1257
Dockets.Justia.com
defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 43) be granted in part, and denied in part. The defendants have filed objections to the report-recommendation. Based upon a de novo review of the entire file, including the portions of the ReportRecommendation to which defendants have objected, and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Lowe, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 43) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. All claims for damages against the defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED; b. Defendants Kooi and Collette are GRANTED summary judgment to the extent that plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim is based on treatment for pain; c. Defendants Kooi and Collette are DENIED summary judgment to the extent that the amended complaint alleges deliberate indifference based on rapid weight loss and the failure to provide nutritional supplements; d. Defendant Wright's summary judgment motion is GRANTED, and all claims against him are DISMISSED; e. Defendant Pettigrass' summary judgment motion is GRANTED, and all federal claims against him are DISMISSED; f. Jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim of defamation is DECLINED and is DISMISSED without prejudice; g. Defendant Kooi's and Collette's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is DENIED; and
- 2 -
2. The Clerk is directed to return the file to the Magistrate Judge for further scheduling and/or pretrial procedures. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2011 Utica, New York.
- 3 -
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?