From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vallade v. Fischer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Oct 29, 2014
12-CV-00231(A)(M) (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2014)

Summary

holding that "even if [evidence] was willfully destroyed in an effort to cover-up defendants' conduct, plaintiff has not established that this caused him to lose or inadequately settle a meritorious action, since his underlying Eighth Amendment claim . . . remains pending"

Summary of this case from Blandon v. Aitchison

Opinion

12-CV-00231(A)(M)

10-29-2014

MESHACH VALLADE, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN FISCHER, J. CONWAY, SGT. DINO, OFFICER SCOLESE, NURSE R. KILLINGER, DR. ABBASEY, DR. LEKOWSKI, SANDRA PURSAK, and P. CHAPPIUS, Defendants.


ORDER

The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On September 29, 2014, Magistrate Judge McCarthy filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 30) be granted in part and denied in part.

The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record in this case, and the pleadings and materials submitted by the parties, and no objections having been timely filed, it is hereby

ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation, the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 30) is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation and deliberate indifference to medical needs claims, with prejudice, and plaintiff's access to courts claim, without prejudice, but is otherwise denied.

The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Dated: October 29, 2014


Summaries of

Vallade v. Fischer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Oct 29, 2014
12-CV-00231(A)(M) (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2014)

holding that "even if [evidence] was willfully destroyed in an effort to cover-up defendants' conduct, plaintiff has not established that this caused him to lose or inadequately settle a meritorious action, since his underlying Eighth Amendment claim . . . remains pending"

Summary of this case from Blandon v. Aitchison

concluding that the defendants' destruction of the plaintiff's "best and definitive evidence" did not satisfy the actual injury requirement because the plaintiff's suit was pending

Summary of this case from Braun v. Sterno

denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment where they argued that the plaintiff's amended claim did not relate back under Rule 15(c)(C), but failed to address the requirements of Rule 15(c) and Section 1024

Summary of this case from Williams v. Suffolk Cnty.
Case details for

Vallade v. Fischer

Case Details

Full title:MESHACH VALLADE, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN FISCHER, J. CONWAY, SGT. DINO…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Oct 29, 2014

Citations

12-CV-00231(A)(M) (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2014)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Suffolk Cnty.

Therefore, the Defendants have not met their burden of showing that the Plaintiff's claims cannot relate back…

Wilcox v. Pimpinelli

(plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference where the only grievance related to a leaky…