Parson v. Barrett et al, No. 1:2014cv01431 - Document 8 (N.D.N.Y 2015)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: Adopting the # 7 Report and Recommendations. It is ORDERED that the Plaintiff's # 1 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, or, alternatively, pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 5 12 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); and that the clerk shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon the Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on August 26, 2015. {The clerk served a copy of this order upon the Pro Se Plaintiff at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Box 51, Comstock, NY 12821 via regular and certified U.S. Postal Mail}. (rep)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Parson v. Barrett et al Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------DRAHCIR PARSON, Plaintiff, v. 1:14-CV-1431 (DNH/RFT) BETH B. BARRETT, Official Court Reporter; JOHN S. HALL JR., County Court Judge; ADA JASON CARUSONE, Warren County District Attorney’s Office, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: DRAHCIR PARSON 14-I-0008 Plaintiff, pro se Great Meadow Correctional Facility Box 51 Comstock, New York 12821 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Drahcir Parson filed this action on November 24, 2014. On May 21, 2015, the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and § 1915A. 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). Dockets.Justia.com Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, or, alternatively, pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); and 2. The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2015 Utica, New York. -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
