Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Attorney(S)
Judges

JAMES MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. R. PALMER, Corrections Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility; S. GRIFFIN, Corrections Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility; M. TERRY, Corrections Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility; F. ENGLESE, Corrections Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility; SERGEANT EDWARDS, Great Meadow Correctional Facility; K. BUMP, Sergeant, Great Meadow Correctional Facility; K.H. SMITH, Sergeant, Great Meadow Correctional Facility; A. PAOLANO, Facility Health Director: and TED NESMITH, Physicians Assistant. Defendants.

ORDER

DAVID HURD, District Judge

Plaintiff, James Murray, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a 51 page Report Recommendation dated February 11, 2008, the Honorable George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in part (i.e., to the extent that it requests the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff's claims against defendant Paolano and Nesmith); and denied in part (i.e., to the extent that it requests dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants on the grounds of plaintiff's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies) for the reasons stated in the Report Recommendation. Lengthy objections to the Report Recommendation have been filed by the plaintiff.

Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which the plaintiff has objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that

1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

2. Plaintiff's complaint against defendants Paolano and Nesmith is DISMISSED with prejudice;

3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED, to the extent that their request for dismissal of plaintiff's assault claims under the Eighth Amendment against the remaining defendants on the grounds of plaintiff's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as stated in the Report-Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MURRAY v. PALMER
(Jun 20, 2008)