Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-045 - Blalock v. Smith et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-045 - Blalock v. Smith et al
August 24, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court amend the docket to include supporting exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 1-3 through 1-9) with the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 12). RECOMMENDED, that defendants' motion to dismiss based upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 37) be GRANTED as to plaintiff's: a. claims for injunctive relief against Shawangunk C.F.; b. claims for monetary damages from defendants in their individual or official capacities under the RLUIPA claim; c. First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against Niles; d. RLUIPA claims against Harrison and Lange; e. First Amendment retaliation claim against Cruz; and f. Supervisory claims against Smith, McKoy, Griffin and Niles. RECOMMENDED, that defendants' motion to dismiss based upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 37-1) be DENIED as to plaintiff's: a. First Amendment religious claims against Harrison, Lellek, Leifeld, Menard, Padgett, Parkhurst, and Lange; b. RLUIPA claims against Lellek, Leifeld, Menard, Padgett, and Parkhurst; and c. First Amendment Retaliation claim against Smith. Objections to R&R due by 9/12/2016 Case Review Deadline 9/14/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel on 8/24/16. (Attachments: # (1) case law){r&r served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)
March 19, 2018
PDF | More
on claim against defendant Smith. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 3/19/18. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that 44 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. ORDERED that 37 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED in part and the following claims DISMISSED: a. claims for injunctive relief against defendants Smith and Harrison of Shawangunk C.F.; b. claims for monetary damages from defendants in their individual or official capacities under RLUIPA; c. First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against defendant Niles; d. RLUIPA claims against defendants Harrison and Lange; e. First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Cruz; and f. Supervisory claims against defendants Smith, McKoy, Griffin and Niles. Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as to plaintiff's: a. First Amendment religious claims against defendants Harrison, Lellek, Leifeld, Menard, Padgett, Parkhurst, and Lange; b. RLUIPA claims against defendants Lellek, Leifeld, Menard, Padgett, and Parkhurst; and c. First Amendment retaliati