Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
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
Judges

MARK OSTERBACK, Plaintiff, V. JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., Defendant

ORDER REMANDING THE CASE TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

WILLIAM STAFFORD, Senior District Judge

Before the court is the magistrate judge's second report and recommendation (doc. 83) docketed March 5, 2003. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be denied. The defendant has filed objections (docs. 87 90) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, the court has determined that the case should be remanded to the magistrate judge for further consideration. As to Count I, the magistrate judge shall consider whether the plaintiff has provided evidence that he was deprived of a due process liberty interest, given that the plaintiff is a parole-ineligible inmate serving a life sentence. As to Count 11, the magistrate judge shall consider whether the plaintiff's evidence of harm — an unsupported statement in his affidavit that he has had "many letters that were disapproved for delivery based on the content of my correspondent's expression"-is sufficient to support his challenge to the defendant's rule concerning mail.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED.

The case shall be REMANDED to the magistrate judge for reconsideration.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

OSTERBACK v. CROSBY
(Jun 9, 2003)