Bridgewater v. Taylor et al, No. 1:2008cv03593 - Document 45 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's time to file his second amended complaint is extended to November 1, 2010. Further extensions will not be granted except for unforeseeable emergencies demonstrated by affidavit October 31, 2010. Plaintif f's application for further discovery is denied. As I have previously noted, in his second amended complaint, plaintiff should describe the John Doe defendants in as much detail as possible. For example, plaintiff might describe a defendant as & quot;John Doe No. 1, a white male, 30- 40 years of age, black hair, medium build, assigned to Post in the early afternoon of August 29, 2006." After meaningful descriptions are provided, I can consider with the parties how the John Doe defendants can be identified. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/20/2010) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (jpo)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bridgewater v. Taylor et al Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .................................. -X PEDRO BRIDGEWATER, 08 Civ. 3593 (VM)(HBP) Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER J. TAYLOR, et al., Defendants. PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: By letter dated July 20, 2010, plaintiff seeks clarification of my Memorandum Opinion and endorsed Order, both dated June 30, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that he cannot discern whether I granted or denied his request for discovery concerning the procedures at Sing Sing Correctional Facility for escorting prisoners. As noted in the last sentence of my June 30 Memoran- dum Opinion and Order, "[p]laintifflsapplication to compel discovery is denied in all respects." In his same letter, plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to file his second amended complaint and additional discovery to determine the identities of the "John Doe" defendants . Plaintiff's time to file his second amended complaint is extended to November 1, 2010. Further extensions will not be Dockets.Justia.com granted except for unforeseeable emergencies demonstrated by affidavit October 31, 2010. Plaintiff's application for further discovery is denied. As I have previously noted, in his second amended complaint, plaintiff should describe the John Doe defendants in as much detail as possible. For example, plaintiff might describe a defendant as "John Doe No. 1, a white male, 3040 years of age, black hair, medium build, assigned to Post in the early afternoon of August 29, 2006." After meaningful descriptions are provided, I can consider with the parties how the John Doe defendants can be identified. Dated: New York, New York September 20, 2010 SO ORDERED HENRY P I T ~ ~ W United States Magistrate Judge Copies mailed to: Mr. Pedro Bridgewater DIN 94-A-8406 Auburn Correctional Facility P.O. Box 618 Auburn, New York 13021 Kevin R. Harkins, Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of New York 24th Floor 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271
]]>
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.
