Filed: Feb. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2019
Summary: DECISION and ORDER DAVID N. HURD , District Judge . Pro se plaintiff James Davis brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On January 3, 2019, the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendant Boyd's motion for summary judgment be denied. 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-Rec
Summary: DECISION and ORDER DAVID N. HURD , District Judge . Pro se plaintiff James Davis brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On January 3, 2019, the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendant Boyd's motion for summary judgment be denied. 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-Reco..
More
DECISION and ORDER
DAVID N. HURD, District Judge.
Pro se plaintiff James Davis brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 3, 2019, the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendant Boyd's motion for summary judgment be denied. 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 Annette M. Boyd's motion for summary judgment is DENIED;
2. The following claims remain for trial: (1) an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against defendant Volpe; (2) an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendants Volpe, Turo, Galbally, Eich, Vasile, Boynton, Dumont, Vincent, and Plummer; and (3) an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant Boyd;
3. Trial in this matter is scheduled for October 8, 2019, in Utica, New York with pre-trial submissions due at noon on or before September 24, 2019; and
4. Plaintiff's previous request for the appointment of pro bono trial counsel is considered renewed and is GRANTED and that assignment will be made.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
