From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pender v. Parker

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Sep 12, 2002
No. 97 Civ. 6917 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2002)

Opinion

No. 97 Civ. 6917 (LAK)

September 12, 2002


ORDER


On August 29, 2002, Magistrate Judge Pitman issued a report and recommendation on defendant Willie Parker's motion for summary judgment and defendant Eric Travis's motion to dismiss the complaint, in which he recommended that both motions be granted in all respects. Having considered plaintiff's objections, which are indecipherable in large part and otherwise utterly lacking in merit, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's conclusions and rationale. In particular, the record demonstrates that the failure to serve Travis in person was the result of plaintiff's own failure to provide the United States Marshals Service with minimally sufficient information and instructions, not any fault on the part of the Marshals. This case therefore falls outside the purview of Romandette v. Weetabix Company, Inc., 807 F.2d 309, 311 (2d Cir. 1986), and fits nicely into Judge Haight's persuasive analysis in Rivera v. Warden of M.C.C., No. 95 Civ. 3779 (CSH), 2000 WL 769206, at *4-7 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2000). The motions are granted. The Clerk will close the case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Pender v. Parker

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Sep 12, 2002
No. 97 Civ. 6917 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2002)
Case details for

Pender v. Parker

Case Details

Full title:JUVONDI R. PENDER, Plaintiff, v. WILLIE PARKER and ERIC TRAVIS, Defendants

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

Date published: Sep 12, 2002

Citations

No. 97 Civ. 6917 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2002)

Citing Cases

Owens v. Service Fire Ins. Co.

This agreement was executed by the defendant by payment of the money as directed. Accordingly, those cases…

Millers National Insurance Co. v. Hatcher

It was an accord, but not a satisfaction. Parker v. Pender, 174 Ga. 579 (3) ( 163 S.E. 506); Georgia National…