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.

Harnett v. Senkowski

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


June 16, 2009

TIMOTHY HARNETT, A/K/A SHAIABDULLAH MUHAMMAD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DANIEL A. SENKOWSKI, SUPERINTENDENT, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, LAWRENCE SEARS, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, GLENN S. GOORD, COMMISSIONER OF DOCS, CASINE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DALE ARTUS, SUPERINTENDENT, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, PAUL M. KNAPP, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; J. BELL, CAPTAIN, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, D. LACLAIR, GRIEVANCE SERGEANT, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, THOMAS G. EAGEN, GRIEVANCE DIRECTOR, TARA BROUSSEAU, GRIEVANCE SUPERVISOR, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, EDWARD J. MCSWEENEY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF DOCS, J. TEDFORD, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, JOHN DOE, #1-11, CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, AND KAREN BELLAMY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF DOCS, DEFENDANTS.

DECISION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 27, 2009, by the Honorable David R. 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. 49).

Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after a party has been served with a copy of a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation. Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 49) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 47) is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED; and it is further

ORDERED, that this action is DISMISSED as to all claims and all Defendants unless Plaintiff pays the filing fee of $350.00 within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for sanctions and dismissal (Dkt. No. 43) is DENIED without prejudice subject to renewal if the above-captioned action is not dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and it is further

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090616

© 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.