-DRH Frejomil v. Beattie et al, No. 9:2010cv01579 - Document 18 (N.D.N.Y 2011)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the 15 Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Therefore it is ORDERED that Defendants' 11 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 12/22/2011. (ptm) (Copy of order served on plaintiff's last known address by regular mail)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------RICHARD FREJOMIL, Plaintiff, -v- 10-CV-1579 KEITH BEATTIE, Corrections Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility; and JAMES YOLE, Corrections Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: RICHARD FREJOMIL Plaintiff Pro Se No. 88-A-6324 Great Meadow Correctional Facility Box 51 Comstock, NY 12821 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Attorney for Defendant The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 ADRIENNE J. KERWIN, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Plaintiff brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. On March 3, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and the motion was briefed. Plaintiff has since died. On November 28, 2011, the Honorable David R. Homer, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report-Recommendation, that defendants' motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 11, be denied without prejudice to renew upon the filing or ordering of a substitution for Frejomil as the plaintiff in this action. 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 Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 22, 2011 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.
