Reeder v. Artus et al, No. 9:2009cv00575 - Document 98 (N.D.N.Y 2012)
Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: The 96 Report and Recommendation is accepted in whole. ORDERED that 88 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in part and granted in part as follows: Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintif f's claims of excessive force against defendants Menard, Martin, Shutts, and Tucker; Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all other claims and all other moving defendants. The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as to defendants D. Holdridge, Baker, Ronald Durmont, Moller, Grom, Poupore, Boulrice, Moseley, Trudeau, Allen, Gittens, Besaw, Tetreault, and Nunez. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 10/15/12. {order served via regular mail on petitioner}(nas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------RASZELL REEDER, Plaintiff, -v- 09-CV-575 (DNH/CFH) D. HOLDRIDGE, Captain; MENARD, Sergeant; BAKER, Sergeant; RONALD DURMONT, Registered Nurse and Examiner; MOLLER, Correctional Officer; TUCKER, Correctional Officer; MARTIN, Correctional Officer; SHUTTS, C.O.; GROM, C.O.; POUPORE, Correctional Officer; BOULRICE, C.O.; MOSELEY, C.O.; TRUDEAU, Correctional Officer; ALLEN, Correctional Officer; GITTENS, Correctional Officer; BESAW, Correctional Officer; TETREAULT, C.O.; NUNEZ, Inspector General, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: RASZELL REEDER Plaintiff Pro Se 94-A-6388 Upstate Correctional Facility Post Office Box 2001 Malone, NY 12953 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Attorney for Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY12224 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge ADRIENNE J. KERWIN, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DECISION and ORDER Plaintiff brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 5, 2012, the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report-Recommendation, that defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied as to plaintiff's claims of excessive force against defendants Menard, Martin, Shutts, and Tucker, and granted as to all other claims and all other moving defendants and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice as to those defendants. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. Based upon a de novo review, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; 2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff's claims of excessive force against defendants Menard, Martin, Shutts, and Tucker; 3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all other claims and all other moving defendants; and -2- 4. The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as to defendants D. Holdridge, Baker, Ronald Durmont, Moller, Grom, Poupore, Boulrice, Moseley, Trudeau, Allen, Gittens, Besaw, Tetreault, and Nunez. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 15, 2012 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.
