Bradford v. City of Watertown, et al, No. 7:2014cv01017 - Document 16 (N.D.N.Y 2015)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: adopting the # 10 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks in whole See 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's # 1 Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as against defendant Watertown Police Department. Plaintiff's # 1 Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend as against defendant City of Watertown. If Plaintiff wishes to file an Amended Complaint, he must do so within thirty (30) days of the filing da te of this Decision and Order, and he is advised that an Amended Complaint will replace the prior Complaint in its entirety. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 3/24/2015. [Copy served upon pro se plaintiff at his last known address of Ogdensburg Correctional Facility, One Correction Way, Ogdensburg, NY 13669.] (mc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bradford v. City of Watertown, et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------LAWRENCE M. BRADFORD, Plaintiff, No. 7:14-CV-01017 (DNH/TWD) -v- WATERTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHAD FREDRICK, Police Officer; SHANE RYAN, Police Officer; and CITY OF WATERTOWN, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: LAWRENCE M. BRADFORD Plaintiff Pro Se Last Known Address 13-B-2878 Ogdensburg Correctional Facility One Correction Way Ogdensburg, NY 13669 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Lawrence M. Bradford brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 27, 2015, the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice as against defendant Watertown Police Department; dismissed with leave to amend as against defendant the City of Watertown; and allowed to proceed as against Dockets.Justia.com defendants Fredrick and Ryan. No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed.1 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. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as against defendant Watertown Police Department; 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend as against defendant the City of Watertown; 3. If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he must do so within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Decision and Order, and he is advised that an amended complaint will replace the prior complaint in its entirety; and 4. The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on plaintiff at his last known address. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 24, 2015 Utica, New York. 1 The Report-Recommendation mailed to plaintiff at his last known address was returned undeliverable. The returned mail indicated that plaintiff is no longer in New York State DOCCS custody, as he was released on February 20, 2015. -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.
