Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McFadden v. Roy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


June 13, 2007

REGINALD MCFADDEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RICHARD ROY; ANTHONY ANNUCCI: DEBORAH JARVIS, IRC; IRWIN LIEV, UROLOGIST; GLENN S. GOORD; AND M.D. KANG M. LEE, DEFENDANTS.
REGINALD MCFADDEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KANG M. LEE, M.D.; ANTHONY ANNUCCI: DONALD SELSKY; T. TEDFORD; DALE ARTUS; T. TAMER, SERGEANT; A. TOUSIGNANT; S. MILLER; MICHAEL GORDON; WILLIAM BROWN; J. LAREAU, SERGEANT; D. LUCIA, SERGEANT; LINDA KLOPH; SERGEANT BERNARD, SHU; DAVID O'CONNELL, M. D.; LOIS CROTTY, INFECTION CONTROL NURSE; DAVID ARMITAGE, LT.; AND LESTER N. WRIGHT, M.D., DOCS, DEFENDANTS.

DECISION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January 9, 2007 by the Honorable David Homer, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 131). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Plaintiff Reginald McFadden, which were filed on January 22, 2007. Objections (Dkt. No. 132).

It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge... may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 131) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, thatDefendants' Motion to dismiss (Docket No. 91) is GRANTED as to defendant Armitage and Defendant Armitage is dismissed from this case; and it is further

ORDERED, thatDefendants' Motion to dismiss (Docket No. 91) is DENIED as to defendants O'Connell, Lee, and Menard; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED.

20070613

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.