From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cleveland v. Schenectady Cnty. Dep't of Children & Families

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 1, 2017
1:16-CV-1235 (NAM/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2017)

Opinion

1:16-CV-1235 (NAM/DJS)

02-01-2017

MICHAEL J. CLEVELAND, SR., and ANGELA I. CLEVELAND, Plaintiffs, v. SCHENECTADY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Defendants.

APPEARANCES: MICHAEL J. CLEVELAND, SR. 73 14TH Street Troy, New York 12305 Plaintiff, Pro Se ANGELA I. CLEVELAND 73 14TH Street Troy, New York 12305 Plaintiff, Pro Se


APPEARANCES: MICHAEL J. CLEVELAND, SR.
73 14TH Street
Troy, New York 12305
Plaintiff, Pro Se ANGELA I. CLEVELAND
73 14TH Street
Troy, New York 12305
Plaintiff, Pro Se Norman A. Mordue, Senior U.S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Upon referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(c), United States Magistrate Daniel J. Stewart issued a Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 8) granting plaintiffs' motions to proceed in forma pauperis and conducting initial review of their pro se complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In his report, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommends that the case proceed against defendant Schenectady County on plaintiffs' claim under Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); that plaintiffs' claims against defendants Mark Powers, Michael Godlewski, Schenectady County Department of Children and Families, Schenectady County Conflict Defenders Office, and Schenectady County Sheriff's Department be dismissed with prejudice; that plaintiffs' claims against the remaining defendants be dismissed without prejudice; and that plaintiffs be given leave to file an amended complaint. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, except for what appear to be clerical errors in the first and second recommended ordering paragraphs. The ordering paragraphs below reflect the Court's corrections.

The body of the Report and Recommendation properly recommends that the claims against James Martain, Alexandera Verrigni, Esq., and Phil Ankerman be dismissed without prejudice; however, the first recommended ordering paragraph appears to recommend that the claims against them be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, although the body of the Report and Recommendation properly recommends that the claims against Tina Cheetham-Colon and Cheryl Cawley be dismissed without prejudice, they are not mentioned in the recommended ordering paragraphs.

Plaintiffs have already filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 10) in which James Martain, Alexandera Verrigni, Esq., Phil Ankerman, Tina Cheetham-Colon, and Cheryl Cawley are again named as defendants; thus, the clerical errors in the recommended ordering paragraphs did not prevent plaintiffs from pursuing their claims against these defendants. --------

It is therefore

ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 8) is accepted, with the exception that the recommended ordering paragraphs are corrected to reflect that the claims against James Martain, Alexandera Verrigni, Esq., Phil Ankerman, Tina Cheetham-Colon, and Cheryl Cawley are dismissed without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the claims in the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) against Mark Powers, Michael Godlewski, Schenectady County Department of Children and Families, Schenectady County Conflict Defenders Office, and Schenectady County Sheriff's Department are dismissed with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the claims in the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) against Paul Brady, Tina Cheetham-Colon, Cheryl Cawley, Julie Bailey, Shainna More, Nicole Nelson, Della Ferraro, Mandi Clegg, Gewenthen Jerome, Michael Malone, Tina Tronetti-Hotvet, Steve Borden, Valerie Valente, Page Lerret, James Martain, Alexandera Verrigni, Esq., Northeast Parent and Child Society, Berkshire Farms, Kathie Voisine-Maruska, Det. Sherman, Phil Ankerman, and Randy Debenham are dismissed without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) adequately states a Monell claim against Schenectady County; and it is further

ORDERED that, because plaintiffs have already filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 10), the letter motion seeking an extension of time to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 9) is denied as moot; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall return the matter to Magistrate for further proceedings; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon all parties and the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2017

Syracuse, New York

/s/ _________

Norman A. Mordue

Senior U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Cleveland v. Schenectady Cnty. Dep't of Children & Families

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 1, 2017
1:16-CV-1235 (NAM/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2017)
Case details for

Cleveland v. Schenectady Cnty. Dep't of Children & Families

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. CLEVELAND, SR., and ANGELA I. CLEVELAND, Plaintiffs, v…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Feb 1, 2017

Citations

1:16-CV-1235 (NAM/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2017)