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.

McChesney v. Hogan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


March 9, 2009

DAVID MCCHESNEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL F. HOGAN, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
DAVID MCCHESNEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL F. HOGAN, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), brought two actions for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff moves in each case (Case No. 9:08-CV-1186, Dkt. No. 2; Case No. 9:08-CV-1290, Dkt. No. 3) for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

The motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Report and Recommendation and Order (Case No. 9:08-CV-1186, Dkt. No. 4; Case No. 9:08-CV-1290, Dkt. No. 4) consolidating the actions, granting other nondispositive relief, and recommending denial of the motions for preliminary injunctive relief.

Plaintiff has filed an Objection (Case No. 9:08-CV-1186 (Lead Case), Dkt. No. 6) to the recommendation that this Court deny the motions for preliminary injunctive relief. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo those parts of a report and recommendation to which a party specifically objects.

The Court has carefully reviewed the entire file, including the 72 pages of exhibits attached to plaintiff's Objection. Upon de novo review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and denies plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunctive relief.

It is therefore

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Case No. 9:08-CV-1186, Dkt. No. 4) of United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles is adopted; and it is further

ORDERED that the motions for injunctive relief (Case No. 9:08-CV-1186, Dkt. No. 2; Case No. 9:08-CV-1290, Dkt. No. 3) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090309

© 1992-2009 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.