1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.2d
  4. 41 F.Supp.2d
  5. 41 F.Supp.2d 172 (1999)
 

BROWN v. MIDDAUGH

No. 96-CV-1097.

41 F.Supp.2d 172 (1999)

James BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Daniel G. MIDDAUGH, Individually and as Sheriff of Oneida County, New York; M. Peter Paravati, Individually and as Undersheriff of Oneida County, New York; Lt. Roy Meyers, Individually and as an employee of the Sheriff's Department of Oneida County, New York; Lt. William Chappell, Individually and as an employee of the Sheriff's Department of Oneida County, New York; Sgt. Meyers, Individually and as an employee of the Sheriff's Department of Oneida County; Sgt. Gregory Hughes, Individually and as an employee of the Sheriff's Department of Oneida County, New York; Fred Lamado, Individually and as a Deputy Sheriff/Corrections Officer of the County of Oneida, New York; Nick White, Individually and as a Deputy Sheriff/Corrections Officer of the County of Oneida, New York; Joseph Lisi, Individually and as an Investigator for the Sheriff's Department of Oneida County, New York; John Doe, a fictitious name intended to represent the names of several employees of the Sheriff's Department of Oneida County, New York and/or the County of Oneida, New York, whose identities are as yet unknown; County of Oneida, New York, Defendants.

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

February 19, 1999.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

A.J. Bosman-Moore, Office of A.J. Bosman-Moore, Rome, New York, for plaintiff.

Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet, P.C., Syracuse, New York (James A. O'Shea, of Counsel) for defendant Oneida County.

Carl Cochi, Offices of Carl Cochi, Utica, New York, for defendant Paravati.

Gorman, Waszkiewicz, Gorman & Schmitt, Utica, New York (Bartle J. Gorman, of Counsel), for defendant Lisi.

Capecelatro, Del Buono & Compson, P.C., Utica, New York (David R. Diodati, of Counsel), for defendants Middaugh, Meyers, Chapple, Hughes, Lamanto and White.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

MUNSON, Senior District Judge.

Currently before the court are defendants' motions for summary judgment, which plaintiff opposes, as well as plaintiff's cross-motion to supplement his complaint, which defendants oppose. Following oral argument on February 12, 1999, the court reserved decision on these motions. Having examined their merits carefully, the court denies plaintiff's motion to supplement his complaint; grants defendants...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases