Parson v. York et al

Filing 33

DECISION AND ORDER: Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31 ) is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ORDERED, that (1) Defendant Nathan Y ork's motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 19 ) is GRANTED; (2) Defendants Anthony Annucci and Christopher Miller's motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Feder al Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 27 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; (3) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding: (i) Parson's transfer to Great Meadows Correctional Facility against Annucci and (ii) unconsti tutional due process claim against Miller, are DISMISSED; (4) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim against Miller regarding his eight month placement in administrative segregation at Great Meadows Correctional Facility REMAINS; (5) Defendant s Annucci and York are DISMISSED from this action; and (6) The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 3/21/17. (served on plaintiff by regular and certified mail) (alh, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------DRAHCIR PARSON, Plaintiff, -v- 9:16-CV-0167 (DNH/CFH) NATHAN YORK, Sheriff, Warren County, ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Commissioner, and CHRISTOPHER MILLER, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility; Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: DRAHCIR PARSON Plaintiff, Pro Se 917 Altamont Ave. Schenectady, New York 12303 LEMIRE, JOHNSON LAW FIRM Attorneys for Defendant Nathan York P.O. Box 2485 2534 Route 9 Malta, New York 12020 GREGG T. JOHNSON, ESQ. APRIL J. LAWS, ESQ. HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Attorneys for Defendants Anthony Annucci and Christopher Miller The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 MARK G. MITCHELL, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Drahcir Parson brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 23, 2016, plaintiff amended his complaint. See ECF No. 18. On February 28, 2017, the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by ReportRecommendation that: (a) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) made by defendant Nathan York (ECF No. 19) be granted and (b) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) made by defendants Anthony Annucci and Christopher Miller (ECF No. 27) be granted in part and denied in part. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed. Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that: (1) Defendant Nathan York’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED; (2) Defendants Anthony Annucci and Christopher Miller’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; (3) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding: (i) Parson’s transfer to Great Meadows Correctional Facility against Annucci and (ii) unconstitutional due process claim against Miller, are DISMISSED; (4) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against Miller regarding his eight month placement in administrative segregation at Great Meadows Correctional Facility REMAINS; -2- (5) Defendants Annucci and York are DISMISSED from this action; and (6) The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 21, 2017 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?