Sawyer v. Prack et al, No. 9:2014cv01198 - Document 42 (N.D.N.Y 2016)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report- Recommendation to which plaintiff objected, the 40 Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDE RED that: (1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; (2) Plaintiff's due process claim asserted against defendants Phelix and Prack is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) Plaintiff's e xcessive force claims asserted against the John Doe defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (4) Defendants' motion with regards to plaintiff's excessive force claims against defendants Richards and Langdon is DENIED and such claims remain; (5) Defendants Phelix, Prack, John Doe #1, John Doe #2 and John Doe #3 are DISMISSED from this action. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/28/16. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sawyer v. Prack et al Doc. 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------TRAZZ SAWYER, Plaintiff, -v- 9:14-CV-1198 (DNH/DEP) ALBERT PRACK; D. PHELIX; D. RICHARDS; S. LANGDON, JOHN DOE #1-3; Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: TRAZZ SAWYER Plaintiff, Pro Se 97-B-2413 3531 Gasin Basin Road Albion, NY 14411 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Attorneys for Defendant James Thomsen The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 KEVIN M. HAYDEN, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Trazz Sawyer brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 29, 2016, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 be granted in part and denied in part. See ECF No. 40. Plaintiff has filed timely objections. See ECF No. 41. Dockets.Justia.com 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 (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; (2) Plaintiff’s due process claim asserted against defendants Phelix and Prack is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) Plaintiff’s excessive force claims asserted against the John Doe defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (4) Defendants’ motion with regards to plaintiff’s excessive force claims against defendants Richards and Langdon is DENIED and such claims remain; (5) Defendants Phelix, Prack, John Doe #1, John Doe #2 and John Doe #3 are DISMISSED from this action; and (6) The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 28, 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.
