Hurst v. Perdue et al, No. 9:2013cv00681 - Document 34 (N.D.N.Y 2014)

Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that 32 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. ORDERED that 25 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 8/26/14. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------GERALD L. HURST, 9:13-CV-0681 (DNH/RFT) Plaintiff, -v- MR. SEARLES, Lieutenant, F.C.I. Ray Brook; MR. DEGON, Lieutenant, F.C.I. Ray Brook; MR. HALLADAY, Correctional Officer, F.C.I. Ray Brook; MR. GODFREY, Correctional Officer, F.C.I. Ray Brook; and MR. HUMPHRIES, Correctional Officer, F.C.I. Ray Brook, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: GERALD L. HURST Plaintiff, Pro Se 64336-053 Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. Box 1000 Cumberland, MD 21501 THE HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN United States Attorney of the Northern District of New York Attorney for Defendants P.O. Box 7198 100 South Clinton Street Syracuse, NY 13261 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge CHARLES E. ROBERTS, ESQ. Ass't United States Attorney DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Gerald Hurst brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 29, 2014, the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the ReportRecommendation. Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which plaintiff objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety; and 3. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2014 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.