Filed: Dec. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER MAE A. D'AGOSTINO , District Judge . Plaintiff commenced this action on January 13, 2014, alleging violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteen Amendment, arising from the lodging of a New York State detainer in May of 2007 while Plaintiff was being held in federal custody and the eventual refusal to lift the detainer in July 2010. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated March 16, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for summary ju
Summary: ORDER MAE A. D'AGOSTINO , District Judge . Plaintiff commenced this action on January 13, 2014, alleging violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteen Amendment, arising from the lodging of a New York State detainer in May of 2007 while Plaintiff was being held in federal custody and the eventual refusal to lift the detainer in July 2010. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated March 16, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for summary jud..
More
ORDER
MAE A. D'AGOSTINO, District Judge.
Plaintiff commenced this action on January 13, 2014, alleging violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteen Amendment, arising from the lodging of a New York State detainer in May of 2007 while Plaintiff was being held in federal custody and the eventual refusal to lift the detainer in July 2010. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated March 16, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 67. Specifically, the Court held that the Defendants' conduct violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and rejected their qualified immunity defense. See id.
On April 10, 2018, Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal, challenging this Court's denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. See Dkt. No. 68. On November 12, 2019, the Second Circuit reversed this Court's March 16, 2018 Memorandum-Decision and Order and remanded the case with instructions to grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 74.
Accordingly, pursuant to the mandate of the Second Circuit dated December 3, 2019, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 62) is GRANTED in its entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.