Murray v. Ramineni et al, No. 9:2008cv00809 - Document 73 (N.D.N.Y 2011)
Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: The 71 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. ORDERED that 57 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; the plaintiff's federal law claims are dismissed with prejudice; the plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 4/1/11. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Murray v. Ramineni et al Doc. 73 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JOEL MURRAY, Plaintiff, vs 9:08-CV-809 *DR. RAMINENI, Medical Director; *A. FERGUSON, N.P.; *DR. MANNAVA, M.D.; *PICENTE, Correction Counselor; STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; *NURSE HOWARD; *WILLIAMS, Nurse; A. PAOLANO, Dr., Great Meadow Correctional Facility; and *J. HARRIS, Nurse Administrator, *All of Mid-State Correctional Facility, Defendants. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APPEARANCES: JOEL MURRAY Plaintiff, Pro Se 00-A-1884 Elmira Correctional Facility PO Box 500 Elmira, New York 14902 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Defendants Department of Law The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 DEAN J. HIGGINS, ESQ. Asst. Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Plaintiff, Joel Murray, commenced this civil rights action in July 2008, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. By Report-Recommendation dated March 3, 2011, the Honorable David R. Dockets.Justia.com Homer, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 57) be granted as to all federal claims and all defendants; that Murray s state law claims be dismissed without prejudice; and that this action be terminated. (Docket No. 71). The plaintiff has filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Docket No. 72). Based upon a de novo review of the entire file, including the portions of the ReportRecommendation to which plaintiff has objected, and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Homer, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 1. Defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 57) is GRANTED; 2. The plaintiff s federal law claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; 3. The plaintiff s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; and 4. The Clerk is directed to file judgment accordingly and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2011 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.
