From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Collins v. Artus

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Mar 9, 2009
9:08-CV-470 (TJM/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Opinion

9:08-CV-470 (TJM/DEP).

March 9, 2009


DECISION ORDER


I. INTRODUCTION

This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). In a Report and Recommendation dated October 31, 2008, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended that Defendants' motions for dismissal be granted and that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with leave to replead. Plaintiff has filed objections to the recommendation.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

III. DISCUSSION

de novo See28 U.S.C. § 636Id. de novo

ORDERED that Defendants' motions for dismissal [dkt. # 13 # 26] are GRANTED and the action is DISMISSED in its entirety with leave to replead. Plaintiff's pending motion for appointment of counsel [dkt. # 32] is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Collins v. Artus

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Mar 9, 2009
9:08-CV-470 (TJM/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)
Case details for

Collins v. Artus

Case Details

Full title:ARVIN COLLINS Plaintiff, v. DALE ARTUS, Superintendent, Clinton…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Mar 9, 2009

Citations

9:08-CV-470 (TJM/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Citing Cases

Vanbrocklen v. U.S.

The Government has moved to dismiss these claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Plaintiff has…

Thomas v. Douglas

Such conclusory allegations do not suffice without supporting facts to establish a plausible medical…