Wright v. Doe et al, No. 9:2014cv01041 - Document 37 (N.D.N.Y 2016)
Court Description: AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER: Based upon a de novo review of the 33 Report-Recommendation, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that: 1. Defendant James Thomsen's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30 ) is GRANTED; 2. All claims against defendant James Thomsen are DISMISSED and he is terminated from this action. The causes of action against the remaining defendants will continue. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/21/16. (served on plaintiff by regular and certified mail)(alh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wright v. Doe et al Doc. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------SHAMEL WRIGHT, Plaintiff, -v- 9:14-CV-1041 (DNH/TWD) ROWLAND POTTER, MICHAEL BARKMAN, JAMES THOMSEN, C.O. JOHN DOE #1, C.O. JOHN DOE #2 AND SGT. JOHN DOE, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: SHAMEL WRIGHT Plaintiff, Pro Se 346 Furman Street, 1st Floor Schenectady, NY 12304 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Attorneys for Defendant James Thomsen The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 RYAN E. MANLEY, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge AMENDED DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Shamel Wright brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 28, 2016, the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendant James Thomsen’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 be granted, and that he be dismissed from this action. See ECF No. 33. Plaintiff has not filed timely objections. 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. Defendant James Thomsen’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED; 2. All claims against defendant James Thomsen are DISMISSED and he is terminated from this action. The causes of action against the remaining defendants will continue; and 3. 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.
