Cases

523 F.3d 119 (2008) Gail BENZMAN, Diane Lapson, Jim Gilroy, Anamae Gilroy, Joalison Polett, Robert Gulack, Janice Fried, John Calder, Jenna Orkin, Kelly Colangelo, George Dinos, Brian Edwards, and Sara Manzano-Diaz, on their behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. Christine Todd WHITMAN, Stephen L. Johnson,[*] and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendants-A

485 F.3d 73 John LOMBARDI, Roberto Ramos Jr., Hasan A. Muhammad, Rafael A. Garcia and Thomas E. Carlstrom, individually and as representatives of a class of individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Christine T. WHITMAN, in her individual capacity, James L. Connaughton, in his individual capacity, Eileen McGinnis, in her individual capacity, William J. Muszynski, in his individual capacity, John L. Henshaw, in his individual c

JACOBS, Chief Judge. The five plaintiffs performed search, rescue and clean-up work at the World Trade Center site (the “site”) in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks. They allege that the defendants, all of them federal officials, issued reassuring — and knowingly false- — announcements about the air quality in lower Manhattan; that the plaintiffs therefore be

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-Appellant Detective Edward J. Doyle appeals from a January 12, 2017 Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, /.), clarifying an Order of March 14, 2016, that denied Detective Doyle’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis of absolute and qualified immunity. Detective Doyle also appeals from a March 9,2017 Orde

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-Appellant Christopher B. Abrams appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, inter alia, denying Abrams qualified immunity from Plaintiff-Appellee Winston E. Hyman’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.1 Thi

SUMMARY ORDER Siddik Mohammad appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We assume the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case. “We review a district court’s decision on a motion to dismiss de novo. We accept as true the facts alleged

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant David Sherman, pro se, appeals from the September 27, 2007 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gershon, J.) dismissing Sherman’s complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case. The district court correctly determined that it was unable to review the dec

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant David Sherman, pro se, appeals from the September 27, 2007 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gershon, J.) dismissing Sherman’s complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case. The district court correctly determined that it was unable to review the dec

SUMMARY ORDER Appellants Justin Holmes and Richard Partington, III, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing their complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. “We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to R

SUMMARY ORDER Appellants Justin Holmes and Richard Partington, III, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing their complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. “We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to R

24-1884 Neurological Surgery v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2024 No. 24-1884 NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY PRACTICE OF LONG ISLAND, PLLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, U

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge Plaintiff has brought various statutory and constitutional claims arising from his detention under the Material Witness Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144. He now moves for leave to file a fourth amended complaint (“FAC”) [132]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs motion [132]. Speci

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: *395Plaintiffs-recipients of Supplemental Social Security Income ("SSI") benefits-bring this action seeking injunctive, declaratory, and mandamus relief against Nancy A. Berryhill,1 Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), and Fred M. Maurin, Regional Commissio

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff Frederick Geiger appeals from a November 2, 2007 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Charles J. Siragusa, Judge), denying his Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration1 of the court’s September 6, 2007 judgment dismissing Geiger’s complaint, which charged defendants with constitutional violations in (1) the termination of plaintiffs

[Cite as State ex rel. Rogers v. Titan Wrecking & Environmental, L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-5059.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, ex rel., : NANCY H. ROGERS : Appellate Case No. 25603 : Plaintiff-Appellee :

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff Frederick Geiger appeals from a November 2, 2007 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Charles J. Siragusa, Judge), denying his Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration1 of the court’s September 6, 2007 judgment dismissing Geiger’s complaint, which charged defendants with constitutional violations in (1) the termination of plaintiffs

655 F.Supp.2d 235 (2009) Robert RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. Brian FISCHER, Lucien J. Leclaire, James Conway, Donald K. Mc Clellan, Gary J. Pritchard, Leonard R. Janora, Timothy J. Ebert, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants. No. 08-CV-6505L. United States District Court, W.D. New York. September 18, 2009. *236 Robe

748 F.Supp.2d 1299 (2010) James E. GILMORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ken SALAZAR, et al., Defendants. Case No. 10-CV-0257-CVE-PJC. United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma. September 21, 2010. *1301 Daniel Eduardo Gomez, John Lynn Williams, Stephen Richard Ward, Conner & Winters, LLP, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiffs. Carol

689 F.Supp.2d 661 (2010) John McKEVITT, Plaintiff, v. Director Robert MUELLER III, et al., Defendants. No. 09 Civ. 3744 (JGK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 16, 2010. *664 Eamonn Seamus Dornan, Dornan & Associates, PLLC, Long Island City, NY, for Plaintiff. Emily Ewell Daughtry, New York, NY, fo

554 F.Supp.2d 285 (2008) Ellen VAN DORSTEN, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. No. 3:08 CV 210 (MRK). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. May 21, 2008. *286 David Skinner Rintoul, Brown, Paindiris & Scott, Glastonbury, CT, for Plaintiff. Jean Elizabeth Tomasco, Theodore J.