Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Parson v. York, 9:16-CV-0167 (DNH/CFH). (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. New York Number: infdco20170322d84 Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2017
Summary: DECISION and ORDER DAVID N. HURD , District Judge . Pro se plaintiff Drahcir Parson brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On May 23, 2016, plaintiff amended his complaint. See ECF No. 18. On February 28, 2017, the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that: (a) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) made by defendant Nathan York (ECF No. 19) be granted and (b) a motion to
More

DECISION and ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Drahcir Parson brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 23, 2016, plaintiff amended his complaint. See ECF No. 18. On February 28, 2017, the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that: (a) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) made by defendant Nathan York (ECF No. 19) be granted and (b) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) made by defendants Anthony Annucci and Christopher Miller (ECF No. 27) be granted in part and denied in part. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed.

Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Therefore, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Defendant Nathan York's motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED;

(2) Defendants Anthony Annucci and Christopher Miller's motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

(3) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding: (i) Parson's transfer to Great Meadows Correctional Facility against Annucci and (ii) unconstitutional due process claim against Miller, are DISMISSED;

(4) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim against Miller regarding his eight month placement in administrative segregation at Great Meadows Correctional Facility REMAINS;

(5) Defendants Annucci and York are DISMISSED from this action; and

(6) The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer