Stinson v. The City Of New York , et al
Filing 153
CLERK'S RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT re: 152 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations in favor of The City Of New York,, Akeem Cardoza, Amanda Black, Anthony Lawrence, David Haynie, Derek Debianchi, Edwin Skepple, Edwin Stevenson, Gregory Lopez, H ope Kirkland, Jacob Saldana, John Ambrose, John Lopez, John Rothwell, Joseph Ponte, Lawrence Hall, Martin Murphy, Michael Blake, Reginald Rothwell, Stanley Ambrose, Trudie Monteforte against Avion Stinson. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECR EED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated July 22, 2021, Defendants having moved for summary judgment dismissing the Second Amended Complaint (the "Cpt"). The motion (Dkt 121) is disposed of as follows, substantia lly for the reasons stated in the painstaking and thorough Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses to which no objection has been filed: 1. The motion is granted and the Cpt is dismissed in all respects as to defendants The Cit y of New York, Ambrose, Ponte, Murphy and Blake. In addition, the Cpt is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) as against unserved defendants Black, Cardoza, Debianchi, Hall, Hayne, Kirkland, Lawrence, Monteforte, Saldana, S kepple and Stevenson. As this disposes of all claims against these defendants, there is no just reason for delay and judgment is entered with respect to these defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 2. The motion is granted in part and the Cp t is dismissed as against defendants defendants Lopez and Rothwell in all respects except that the motion is denied with respect to the portion of plaintiffs First Claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for force allegedly used by them on plaintiff in the bathroom of the GMDC clinic. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 7/22/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
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.