Flemming v. Adams et al, No. 9:2014cv00316 - Document 41 (N.D.N.Y 2016)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that 37 Report and Recommendation is accepted in whole. ORDERED that Defendants Matthew J. King and David Bilow's motion for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 32 ) of plai ntiff Woodrow Flemming's complaint (ECF No. 1 ) is: (a) GRANTED as to the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants King and Bilow; and (b) DENIED as to the First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants King and Bilow.Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/21/16.{order served via regular mail on plaintiff} (nas, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Flemming v. Adams et al Doc. 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------WOODROW FLEMMING, Plaintiff, -v- 9:14-CV-0316 (DNH/DEP) MATTHEW J. KING; DAVID BILOW, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: WOODROW FLEMMING Plaintiff pro se P.O. Box 146 New York, NY 10039 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York The Capital Albany, NY 12224-0341 ORIANNA CARRAVETTA, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Woodrow Flemming brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 20, 2016, the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. See ECF No. 37. Defendants have filed timely objections and plaintiff has filed a response. See ECF Nos. 39, 40. Dockets.Justia.com Based upon a de novo review of the Report-Recommendation, the ReportRecommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that: 1. Defendants Matthew J. King and David Bilow’s motion for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 32) of plaintiff Woodrow Flemming’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is: (a) GRANTED as to the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants King and Bilow; and (b) DENIED as to the First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants King and Bilow; and 2. The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 21, 2016 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.
