Levesque v. Clinton County Correctional Facility, No. 9:2010cv00787 - Document 89 (N.D.N.Y 2013)
Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: 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). ORDERED that 1. Defendant Clinton County's motion fo r judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 48 )is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: (A) Plaintiff's Title II ADA claim survives; (B) Plaintiff's Title I ADA claim is DISMISSED with prejudice; (C) Plaintiff's municipal liabil ity claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file an amended complaint that corrects the pleading defects in that claim, as described in the Report- Recommendation, within thirty (30) day s of the date of this Decision and Order; and (D) Plaintiff's punitive damage claim against defendant Clinton County is DISMISSED with prejudice; 2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 46 , 56 , 60 , 67 , 68 and 87 ) are DENIED; 3. Plaintiff's motion for contempt and sanctions (Dkt. No. 80 ) is DENIED; 4. Plaintiff's motion for an order vacating his criminal conviction (Dkt. No. 87 ) isDENIED. (Notice of Compliance Deadline 2/27/2013, Case Review Deadline 3/29/2013). Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 1/28/2013. (ptm) (Copy served on plaintiff by regular mail)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------ANDRE R. LEVESQUE, Plaintiff, 9:10-CV-0787 -v- CLINTON COUNTY, also known as Clinton County Correctional Facility; JOHN DOE, Lieutenant; and JOHN DOE(S), Corrections Guards, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: ANDRE R. LEVESQUE Plaintiff Pro Se 35 A Smithfield Blvd. #149 Plattsburgh, NY 12901 LEMIRE JOHNSON, LLC Attorneys for Defendant Clinton County P.O. Box 2485 2534 Route 9 Malta, NY 12020 GREGG T. JOHNSON, ESQ. APRIL J. LAWS, ESQ. MARY ELIZABETH KISSANE, ESQ. DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 28, 2012, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report-Recommendation, that defendant Clinton County's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted in part and denied in part; all of plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief be denied; plaintiff's motion for contempt and sanctions be denied; and plaintiff's motion for an order vacating his criminal conviction be denied. In addition, Judge Peebles granted Clinton County's motion for reconsideration; denied plaintiff's motions for leave to amend his complaint; and denied the remaining motions, all of which were filed by plaintiff. No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed. 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 Clinton County s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 48) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: (A) Plaintiff's Title II ADA claim survives; (B) Plaintiff's Title I ADA claim is DISMISSED with prejudice; (C) Plaintiff's municipal liability claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file an amended complaint that corrects the pleading defects in that claim, as described in the ReportRecommendation, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order; and (D) Plaintiff's punitive damage claim against defendant Clinton County is DISMISSED with prejudice; 2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 46, 56, 60, 67, 68 and 87) are DENIED; -2- 3. Plaintiff's motion for contempt and sanctions (Dkt. No. 80) is DENIED; 4. Plaintiff's motion for an order vacating his criminal conviction (Dkt. No. 87) is DENIED; and 5. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 28, 2013 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.
