From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simpson v. Overbaugh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 23, 2015
No. 9:15-CV-0180 (DNH/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2015)

Opinion

No. 9:15-CV-0180 (DNH/CFH)

11-23-2015

MICHAEL SIMPSON, Plaintiff, v. LT. MICHAEL OVERBAUGH, et al., Defendants.

APPEARANCES: SUSSMAN & WATKINS Attorney for Plaintiff 145 Main Street, 2nd Floor Ossining, NY 10562 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for State Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL A. DEEM, ESQ. RYAN W. HICKEY, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General


APPEARANCES: SUSSMAN & WATKINS
Attorney for Plaintiff
145 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Ossining, NY 10562
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
Attorney for State Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL A. DEEM, ESQ. RYAN W. HICKEY, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Simpson brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). On September 28, 2015, the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendants' partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 38) be granted. No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed.

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

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED in its entirety;

The following claims remain: (i) the First Cause of Action (Excessive Force) against defendants Overbaugh, Catina, Nichols, W. Owens and John Does 1-25 and (ii) the Second Cause of Action (Failure to Intervene) against defendants Overbaugh, Catina, Oliver, Jane Doe, and John Does 1-25. --------

2. All claims against defendants Annucci, Smith and Colvin are DISMISSED;

3. Plaintiff's due process claims against defendants Overbaugh and Oliver are DISMISSED;

4. Plaintiff's conspiracy claim is DISMISSED;

5. Plaintiff's failure-to-intervene claims against defendants S. Owens, W. Owens, Nichols, Cuda and Klein are DISMISSED;

6. Plaintiff's claims of verbal harassment against S. Owens, W. Owens, Cuda, Catina and unnamed or John Doe corrections officers are DISMISSED; and it is further ordered that

7. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

United States District Judge

Dated: November 23, 2015

Utica, New York


Summaries of

Simpson v. Overbaugh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 23, 2015
No. 9:15-CV-0180 (DNH/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2015)
Case details for

Simpson v. Overbaugh

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL SIMPSON, Plaintiff, v. LT. MICHAEL OVERBAUGH, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Nov 23, 2015

Citations

No. 9:15-CV-0180 (DNH/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2015)

Citing Cases

Sheffer v. Fleury

tions indicating that the [l]etter was sent to [a supervisor] at an appropriate address and by appropriate…