Reeder v. Artus et al
Filing
98
DECISION and ORDER: The 96 Report and Recommendation is accepted in whole. ORDERED that 88 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in part and granted in part as follows: Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintif f's claims of excessive force against defendants Menard, Martin, Shutts, and Tucker; Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all other claims and all other moving defendants. The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as to defendants D. Holdridge, Baker, Ronald Durmont, Moller, Grom, Poupore, Boulrice, Moseley, Trudeau, Allen, Gittens, Besaw, Tetreault, and Nunez. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 10/15/12. {order served via regular mail on petitioner}(nas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------RASZELL REEDER,
Plaintiff,
-v-
09-CV-575
(DNH/CFH)
D. HOLDRIDGE, Captain; MENARD, Sergeant;
BAKER, Sergeant; RONALD DURMONT,
Registered Nurse and Examiner; MOLLER,
Correctional Officer; TUCKER, Correctional
Officer; MARTIN, Correctional Officer; SHUTTS,
C.O.; GROM, C.O.; POUPORE, Correctional
Officer; BOULRICE, C.O.; MOSELEY, C.O.;
TRUDEAU, Correctional Officer; ALLEN,
Correctional Officer; GITTENS, Correctional
Officer; BESAW, Correctional Officer;
TETREAULT, C.O.; NUNEZ, Inspector General,
Defendants.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
RASZELL REEDER
Plaintiff Pro Se
94-A-6388
Upstate Correctional Facility
Post Office Box 2001
Malone, NY 12953
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
Attorney for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, NY12224
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
ADRIENNE J. KERWIN, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General
DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September
5, 2012, the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by
Report-Recommendation, that defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied as to
plaintiff's claims of excessive force against defendants Menard, Martin, Shutts, and Tucker,
and granted as to all other claims and all other moving defendants and that the complaint be
dismissed with prejudice as to those defendants. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the
Report-Recommendation.
Based upon a de novo review, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in
part;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff's claims of
excessive force against defendants Menard, Martin, Shutts, and Tucker;
3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all other claims
and all other moving defendants; and
-2-
4. The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as to defendants D. Holdridge,
Baker, Ronald Durmont, Moller, Grom, Poupore, Boulrice, Moseley, Trudeau, Allen, Gittens,
Besaw, Tetreault, and Nunez.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2012
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?