Ward v. LeClaire ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •          10-1519-pr
    Ward v. LeClaire
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    SUMMARY ORDER
    RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,
    2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
    WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
    ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
    ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
    1            At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
    2       for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    3       United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
    4       New York, on the 28th day of June, two thousand eleven.
    5
    6       PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,
    7                DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
    8                GERARD E. LYNCH,
    9                         Circuit Judges.
    10
    11
    12
    13       KENNETH WARD,
    14
    15                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
    16
    17                      -v.-                                                10-1519-pr
    18
    19       LUCIEN LECLAIRE, JR., Acting Commissioner, THOMAS G. EAGEN,
    20       Director of Central Office Review Committee, LAWRENCE SEARS,
    21       Superintendent, Franklin Correctional Facility, J.D. DEMARS,
    22       Deputy Superintendent of Programs, R. BOYEA, IGP Supervisor,
    23       GLENN GOORD, DOCS Commissioner, M. DUTIL, Correctional
    24       Officer, BRIAN FISCHER, Commissioner, K. HABECK, Deputy
    25       Superintendent of Administration, T. DUMAS, Registered Nurse,
    26       D.A. ROCK, Deputy Superintendent of Security,
    27
    28                                     Defendants-Appellees,
    29
    30       RICHARD SAVAGE, Superintendent, Gowanda Correctional Facility,
    31       J. MELENDEZ, Deputy Superintendent of Programs, LINDA JANISH,
    32       BOYCE, R. MAHONEY, Deputy Superintendent of Administration,
    33       WALDMILLER, Correctional Officer, RIGGTIONE, Correctional
    1   Officer, HESSEL, Correctional Officer,
    2
    3                     Defendants.
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8   FOR APPELLANT:    Kenneth Ward, pro se, Rochester, NY.
    9
    10   FOR APPELLEE:     Kate H. Nepveu, Assistant Solicitor
    11                     General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor
    12                     General, Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor
    13                     General, on the brief,), for Eric T.
    14                     Schneiderman, Attorney General of the
    15                     State of New York, Albany, NY.
    16
    17        Appeal from an order of the United States District
    18   Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.).
    19
    20       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
    21   AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED.
    22       Plaintiff-appellant Kenneth Ward, pro se, appeals from
    23   an order of the United States District Court for the
    24   Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.), which denied
    25   defendants’ motion for summary judgment with regard to
    26   Ward’s Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim
    27   against defendant Dutil, but granted defendants’ motion for
    28   summary judgment with regard to all of Ward’s other claims.
    29   We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
    30   facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for
    31   review.
    32
    2
    1        Upon review, we have determined that we lack appellate
    2    jurisdiction over Ward’s appeal.   An order granting partial
    3    summary judgment like the one Ward challenges in this appeal
    4    is not a final order for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.    See
    5    Petrello v. White, 
    533 F.3d 110
    , 113-14 (2d Cir. 2008);
    6    Geneva Pharm. Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 
    386 F.3d 485
    ,
    7    494-95 (2d Cir. 2004).   Nor did the district court expressly
    8    enter a partial final judgment for any of the dismissed
    9    claims or parties pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal
    10   Rules of Civil Procedure.   See 
    Petrello, 533 F.3d at 113
    .
    11   Moreover, no other basis for appellate jurisdiction has been
    12   demonstrated.   See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), (b); see also
    13   Whiting v. Lacara, 
    187 F.3d 317
    , 319–20 (2d Cir. 1999).
    14       For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is hereby
    15   DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
    16
    17                               FOR THE COURT:
    18                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    19
    20
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1519

Filed Date: 6/28/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021