Tuitt v. Chase et al, No. 9:2011cv00776 - Document 46 (N.D.N.Y 2014)

Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: Pro se plaintiff Brian Tuitt brought this action pursuant o 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 22, 2014, the Honorable Thrse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that plaintiff's eq ual protection, access to Courts, procedural due process, verbal harassment, and conspiracy claims be dismissed without leave to amend and that defendants be directed to respond to the remaining claims in the amended complaint. Defendants timel y filed objections to the Report- Recommendation. Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which defendants objected, the 44 Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 63 6(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's equal protection, access to courts, procedural due process, verbal harassment, and conspiracy claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend; 2. Defendants are directed to respond to the following claims in the manner provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (a) the retaliation claim against defendants Chase and Redel regarding nvoluntary Protective Custody placement; (b) the retaliation claim against defendants L opez, Benware, and Chase rgarding transfer to another facility; (c) the retaliation claim against defendant Redel regarding access to the law library and a notary; (d) the retaliation claim against defendant Chase regarding the "SOP" s ign; (e) the retaliation claim against defendants Liemuex, Benware, and Chase regarding the magazine incident; (f) the retaliation claim against defendants Lopez, Benware, and Chase regarding plaintiff's removal from the Sex Offender Counseli ng and Treatment Program; (g) the retaliation claim against defendants Lopez and Benware regarding plaintiff's placement in the general population; and 3. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 6/27/2014. (ptm) (Copy served on plaintiff by regular mail)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------BRIAN TUITT, 9:11-CV-0776 (DNH/TWD) Plaintiff, -v- P. CHASE, M. LOPEZ, N. BENWARE, LIEMUEX, REDEL, JOHN DOES 1-3, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: BRIAN TUITT, 06-A-1963 Plaintiff pro se Mid-State Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2500 Marcy, NY 13403 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Attorney for Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY12224 CHRISTOPHER W. HALL, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Brian Tuitt brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 22, 2014, the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that plaintiff's equal protection, access to courts, procedural due process, verbal harassment, and conspiracy claims be dismissed without leave to amend and that defendants be directed to respond to the remaining claims in the amended complaint. Defendants timely filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which defendants objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's equal protection, access to courts, procedural due process, verbal harassment, and conspiracy claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend; 2. Defendants are directed to respond to the following claims in the manner provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (a) the retaliation claim against defendants Chase and Redel regarding Involuntary Protective Custody placement; (b) the retaliation claim against defendants Lopez, Benware, and Chase regarding transfer to another facility; (c) the retaliation claim against defendant Redel regarding access to the law library and a notary; (d) the retaliation claim against defendant Chase regarding the "SOP" sign; (e) the retaliation claim against defendants Liemuex, Benware, and Chase regarding the magazine incident; (f) the retaliation claim against defendants Lopez, Benware, and Chase regarding plaintiff's removal from the Sex Offender Counseling and Treatment Program; -2- (g) the retaliation claim against defendants Lopez and Benware regarding plaintiff''s placement in the general population; and 3. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 27, 2014 Utica, New York. -3-

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.