From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nelson v. Nesmith

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Aug 13, 2008
9:06-CV-1177 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2008)

Summary

explaining that to claim the exception, the inmate must "show that the danger faced rises to the level of exposure to a 'serious physical injury."

Summary of this case from Lynn v. Roberts

Opinion

9:06-CV-1177.

August 13, 2008


DECISION ORDER


This matter, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was referred to the Hon. David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Northern District of New York Local Rule 72.3(c).

No objections to the July 2, 2008 Report-Recommendation have been raised. After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein and DISMISSES the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Nelson v. Nesmith

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Aug 13, 2008
9:06-CV-1177 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2008)

explaining that to claim the exception, the inmate must "show that the danger faced rises to the level of exposure to a 'serious physical injury."

Summary of this case from Lynn v. Roberts

discussing some of plaintiff's previous filings in that and other district courts

Summary of this case from Nelson v. Chang
Case details for

Nelson v. Nesmith

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS NELSON, Plaintiff, v. TED NESMITH, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Aug 13, 2008

Citations

9:06-CV-1177 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2008)

Citing Cases

Ramrattan v. State

Finally, "[t]he imminent danger claimed by the inmate . . . must be real, and not merely speculative or…

Nelson v. Scoggy

This Court notes also that over nine months ago, it granted a section 1915(g) motion for vacatur of IFP…