Rockefeller v. Warner, et al, No. 1:2013cv01159 - Document 52 (W.D.N.Y. 2016)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge McCarthy's four Report and Recommendations 34 35 42 and 50 . The Court is granting defendants' motions to dismiss 36 28 and 38 , and defendant Rademacher's first motion to dismiss 20 is denied as moot. The case is referred back to Judge McCarthy for further proceedings. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 10/26/16. (LAS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rockefeller v. Warner, et al Doc. 52 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JEFFREY ROCKEFELLER, Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER 13-CV-1159A v. SGT. WARNER, ANDREW HOLMAN, N. KLIMKO, SUMMERS, CAPT. C. ROBINSON, C.O. MATTHEW RODEMACHER, CAPT. PAUL CHAPPIOUS, MARK BRADT and BRIAN FISCHER, Defendants. The Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Since May 2016, Judge McCarthy has filed four Reports and Recommendations (R&Rs) (Docket Nos. 34, 35, 42, and 50) addressing a number of motions to dismiss filed by various defendants. Despite being directed to do so by Judge McCarthy, the Plaintiff did not respond to any of the motions to dismiss, nor did he timely object to any of Judge McCarthy’s recommendations. The Court has carefully reviewed each R&R, the record in this case, and the pleadings and materials submitted by the parties, and no objections having been timely filed, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant Rademacher’s first motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20) is denied as moot; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s July 12, 2016 Report and Recommendation, defendant Dockets.Justia.com Rademacher’s second motion to dismiss (Docket No. 36) is granted; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s May 18, 2016 Report and Recommendation, the motion to dismiss (Docket No. 28) filed by defendants Robinson, Chapius, Bradt, and Fischer is granted; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s September 7, 2016 Report and Recommendation, defendant Chapius’ second motion to dismiss (Docket No. 38) is granted. The case is referred back to Judge McCarthy for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. ____Richard J. Arcara____________ HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Dated: October 26, 2016
]]>
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.
