Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Simmons v. Adamy

United States District Court, W.D. New York

December 17, 2013

ALPHONSO SIMMONS, Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTION OFFICER DAVID ADAMY, et al., Defendants

Page 303

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 304

Alphonso Simmons, Plaintiff, Pro se, Napanoch, NY.

For David Adamy, Correction Officer, Sandra Dolce, Dep Sup Programs, Anthony Annucci, Deputy Commissioner, Defendants: J. Richard Benitez, LEAD ATTORNEY, N.Y.S. Attorney General's Office, Department of Law, Rochester, NY.

OPINION

Page 305

DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Alphonso Simmons (" plaintiff" ), proceeding pro se, brings this action against Attica Correctional Facility Corrections Officer David Adamy (" Adamy" ), Department of Correctional Services (" DOCS" ) Deputy Superintendent of Programs Sandra Dolce (" Dolce" ), and DOCS Deputy Commissioner and Counsel Anthony Annucci (" Annucci" ). Plaintiff alleges that the defendants subjected him to unlawful retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. #19). He requests money damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on April 2, 2008. (Dkt. #1). An amended complaint was filed August 31, 2009. (Dkt. #19). Plaintiff claims that during his incarceration at Attica, his constitutional rights were violated when: (1) the defendants retaliated against him for his pursuit of internal grievances and/or showed deliberate indifference toward such retaliation, by denying plaintiff reasonable access to Attica's law library; (2) defendants retaliated against plaintiff by interfering with plaintiff's access to religious services, via a schedule for law library access that conflicted with religious classes and observances; and (3) Adamy retaliated against plaintiff by issuing a false misbehavior report.

On July 15, 2011, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56. (Dkt. #55). On August 15, 2011, plaintiff cross moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. #58).

For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion (Dkt. #55) is granted, plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #58) is denied, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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