Bridgeforth v. Parmer et al, No. 9:2009cv00888 - Document 28 (N.D.N.Y 2010)
Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 17 ) is granted; ORDERED that The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 7/19/10. (order served on plaintiff by regular mail) (mnc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bridgeforth v. Parmer et al Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------OTIS MICHAEL BRIDGEFORTH, Plaintiff, vs 9:09-CV-888 W. PARMER, Physician s Assistant; R. HOLMES, Registered Nurse; N. SMITH, Nurse Administrator; and K. RABIDEAU, Acting Nurse Administrator, All of UpState Correctional Facility, Defendants. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APPEARANCES: OTIS MICHAEL BRIDGEFORTH Plaintiff, Pro Se 2912 North Washington Street Wilmington, DE 19802 HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Defendants Department of Law The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 CHARLES J. QUACKENBUSH, ESQ. Asst. Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Plaintiff, Otis Michael Bridgeforth, commenced this civil rights action in August 2009, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. By Report-Recommendation dated June 22, 2010, the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Dockets.Justia.com defendants motion to dismiss the complaint (Docket No. 17) be granted and the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed. Based upon a careful review of the file, and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Baxter, 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 to dismiss (Docket No. 17) is GRANTED; 2. The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 3. The Clerk is directed to file judgment accordingly and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 19, 2010 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.
