From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Lapolt

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Oct 1, 2009
9:07-CV-1184 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009)

Opinion

9:07-CV-1184.

October 1, 2009

JOEL ANDERSON, 03-A-3649, Plaintiff, pro se, Sullivan Correctional Facility, Fallsburg, NY.

SHOSHANNAH V. BEWLAY, ESQ., Asst. Attorney General, HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York, Attorney for Defendants, Department of Law, The Capitol, Albany, New York.


DECISION and ORDER


Plaintiff, Joel Anderson, brought this civil rights action in November 2007, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Report-Recommendation dated September 17, 2009, the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 31) be granted in part and denied in part; that plaintiff's cross-motion for default judgment be denied; and that if the recommendations are accepted, the following claims and defendants will remain: (1) plaintiff's retaliation claim against Leghorn; (2) plaintiff's state law claims; (3) plaintiff's access to courts claim against Guzman and Maxine Moe #1; and that if the recommendations are adopted, the defendants should be directed to file an answer to the surviving claims. The Magistrate Judge also warns plaintiff that if the recommendations are accepted, he must take reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of Maxine Moe # 1, and file a motion to amend his amended complaint to add such individual by name. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed.

Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Treece, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects.See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that

1. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 31) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

2. Plaintiff's cross-motion for default judgment is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendant Michael Leghorn remains as part of this action;

4. Plaintiff's state law claims will remain as part of this action;

5. Plaintiff's access to courts claim against defendants Dr. Guzman and Maxine Moe #1 will remain as part of this action;

6. The defendants are directed to file an answer to the surviving claims;

7. The plaintiff must take reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of Maxine Moe # 1; and if so, he must file a motion to amend his amended complaint to add such individual by name; and

8. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Lapolt

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Oct 1, 2009
9:07-CV-1184 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009)
Case details for

Anderson v. Lapolt

Case Details

Full title:JOEL ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. KAREN LAPOLT, Deputy Superintendent of…

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

Date published: Oct 1, 2009

Citations

9:07-CV-1184 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009)

Citing Cases

Crenshaw v. Hartman

It is well established that inmates have no right, constitutional or otherwise, to any particular job or…

Vazquez v. City of New York

Jacobsen, No. 13-CV-8332 (JMF), 2014 WL 5324326, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2014) (citing Friedl v. City of…