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.

Edwards v. Syracuse Police Department

United States District Court, N.D. New York

January 23, 2017

GREGORY EDWARDS also known as GREGORY EDWARDS - EL, Plaintiff,
v.
SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT; ABRAHAM MAMOUN, Officer; ROBERT HARRINGTON, Officer; and ANDREW QUINN, Officer, Defendants.

          GREGORY EDWARDS 15-B-2450 Cayuga Correctional Facility Plaintiff pro se

          ORDER

          Frederick J. iScullin, Jr., Senior United States District Judge

         Plaintiff commenced this action against the Syracuse Police Department and three individual police officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Defendant officers assaulted him during the course of a stop and subsequent arrest on December 22, 2013, and that Defendant Syracuse Police Department has promulgated policies that permitted the unlawful assault to occur.

         On December 30, 2016, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Report, Recommendation and Order, in which he, among other things, recommended that this Court dismiss Defendant Syracuse Police Department from this action and substitute the City of Syracuse as a Defendant in its place. See Dkt. No. 4 at 8. Magistrate Judge Peebles also recommended that the Court otherwise accept Plaintiff's complaint for filing. See Id. at 9.

         Although Plaintiff did not file any objections to Magistrate Judge Peebles' recommendations, he did file an amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 5. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's amended complaint; and it appears that, other than differences in formatting and the substitution of Defendant City of Syracuse as a defendant in place of Defendant Syracuse Police Department, the amended complaint is identical to Plaintiff's original complaint.[1] Compare Dkt. No. 1 with Dkt. No. 5.[2]

         When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote omitted). After conducting this review, "the Court may 'accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . . . recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).

         The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Peebles' December 30, 2016 Report, Recommendation and Order for clear error and manifest injustice; and, finding none, the Court hereby

         ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' December 30, 2016 Report, Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further

         ORDERS that Defendant Syracuse Police Department is DISMISSED from this action and the City of Syracuse is substituted in its place as a Defendant; and the Court further

         ORDERS that Plaintiff's amended complaint, see Dkt. No. 5, is ACCEPTED for filing; and the Court further

         ORDERS that Plaintiff's most recently filed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see Dkt. No. 6, is DENIED as moot for the reasons stated herein; and the Court further

          ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall issue summonses and forward them with copies of the amended complaint to the United States Marshal, along with packets containing General Order 25, which sets forth this District's Civil Case Management Plan, for service on the four named Defendants; and the Court further

         ORDERS that the Courtroom Deputy Clerk shall schedule a Rule 16 conference; and the Court further

         ORDERS that, subsequent to service of process on Defendants, Defendants or their counsel shall file a formal response to Plaintiff's amended complaint in compliance with the ...


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.