Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Lamount Green v. James Conlen
March 19, 2012
LAMOUNT GREEN, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES CONLEN, LAWRENCE BOUDREAU, T.W. ARNOLD, JEFFREY OSBORN, AND LANNY JENSEN, DEPUTY SHERIFFS, ALBANY COUNTY SHERIFF"S DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
In this pro se inmate civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, plaintiff's second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 45) claims that,
while plaintiff was a pretrial detainee in Albany County, several
Albany County prison guards beat him in violation of his Eighth
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.*fn1
Defendants move (Dkt. No. 51) for summary judgment on the
ground that, based upon the credible evidence in the record, no
reasonable factfinder could conclude that defendants violated
plaintiff's constitutional rights.
Upon referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules N.D.N.Y. 72.3(c), United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 72) recommending that the motion be denied. Defendants object (Dkt. No. 73), contending that no reasonable jury could find for plaintiff, and that therefore summary judgment should be granted.
Upon de novo review, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Peebles that "the conflicting accounts offered by plaintiff and defendants squarely raise issues of credibility and present questions of fact for resolution by a jury and [are] inappropriate for determination by the court on a motion for summary judgment." The Court has considered the specific issues raised by defendants, including the evidence that the pages attached to plaintiff's opposition papers as "Exhibit B-1" pertain to plaintiff's appearance in court in October 2007, not to his appearance on November 1, 2007. Nevertheless, plaintiff's version of events finds some record support, including the documentation of the injury to plaintiff's forehead on November 2, 2007, and his own statements regarding how he received that injury. The anomalies and inconsistencies in plaintiff's evidence raise questions of credibility, but do not warrant summary judgment.
ORDERED that United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 73) is accepted; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 51) is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that this case is deemed Trial Ready, and is referred back to Magistrate Peebles to conduct a final pretrial conference; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this Memorandum-Decision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules ...
Buy This Entire Record For