Rodriguez v. Rock et al, No. 9:2013cv01106 - Document 55 (N.D.N.Y 2015)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that 54 Report and Recommendation is accepted in whole. ORDERED that 43 Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; as follows: Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim asserted agai nst all defendants is dismissed; Plaintiff's claims asserted against defendant Patterson are dismissed; Plaintiff's First Amendment claims asserted against defendants Lira, Haug and Rock are dismissed. Defendant's motion with regards to Plaintiff's First Amendment claims asserted against defendants LaBarge and Debyah is denied and the matter shall set down for trial. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/1/15. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rodriguez v. Rock et al Doc. 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. 9:13-CV-01106 (DNH/DEP) DAVID A. ROCK; MICHAEL J. LIRA; D. HAUG; TIMOTHY A. DEBYAH; SEAN PATTERSON; LAWRENCE W. LABARGE; Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: JOSE RODRIGUEZ, 09-A-3150 Plaintiff, pro se Elmira Correctional Facility P.O. Box 500 Elmira, New York 14902 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 CHRISTOPHER W. HALL, ESQ. DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Jose Rodriguez filed this action on September 9, 2013. On July 28, 2015, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by ReportRecommendation that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed. Dockets.Justia.com 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. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; as follows: (a) Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim asserted against all defendants is dismissed; (b) Plaintiff’s claims asserted against defendant Patterson are dismissed; (c) Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims asserted against defendants Lira, Haug and Rock are dismissed; and (d) Defendant’s motion with regards to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims asserted against defendants LaBarge and Debyah is denied and the matter shall set down for trial. 2. The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 1, 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.
