Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Jan. 21, 2021

Schmiege v. Henton

Docket
7:19-cv-07229
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil RightsPro Se
In one sentence

In Schmiege v. Henton, the court dismissed the complaint because the alleged medical conditions did not receive Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Who this affects

Brian E. Schmiege's case was dismissed, affecting his claims against Deputy of Health Henton and Dr. Alam.

What happened

In Schmiege v. Henton, Brian E. Schmiege sued Deputy of Health Henton and Dr. Alam. The judgment states that the court dismissed his complaint for the reasons given in a separate memorandum dated January 20, 2021.

The court stated that Schmiege could not establish that his medical conditions were protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court therefore concluded that changing the complaint would not help and that permission to amend was unnecessary.

The court, whose judge is not identified in the provided text, dismissed the complaint and closed the case. The judgment was entered on January 21, 2021.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Schmiege v. Henton · No. 7:19-cv-07229
Date
Jan. 21, 2021

Background

Brian E. Schmiege brought the action against Deputy of Health Henton and Dr. Alam. The judgment refers to Schmiege's complaint as a pro se complaint, meaning one filed without a lawyer. The provided text does not describe the underlying events or the specific relief requested.

Ruling

The judgment incorporates the reasons stated in the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 20, 2021. It states that Schmiege could not establish that his medical conditions implicated protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court therefore determined that any amendment would be futile, meaning it would not cure the problem identified by the court.

Disposition

The court dismissed Schmiege's complaint and ordered that the action be closed. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The provided judgment does not identify the judge by name and does not include the incorporated memorandum's fuller reasoning.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.