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, )
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?