Lopez v. N.Y.C. Department of Correction
- 1:19-cv-03887
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lopez v. N.Y.C. Department of Correction, the court granted defendants’ dismissal motion, dismissed claims against Charles Appiah, and denied appeal fee status.
Anthony Lopez’s claims against the City of New York, Captain Avin, Deputy Warden Mitchell, and Physician’s Assistant Charles Appiah were resolved by the judgment; the case was closed.
What happened
Lopez v. N.Y.C. Department of Correction involved Anthony Lopez’s claims against the City of New York, Captain Avin, Deputy Warden Mitchell, and Physician’s Assistant Charles Appiah. The judgment does not state the underlying facts or claims.
The court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the City, Captain Avin, and Deputy Warden Mitchell. It also dismissed the claims against Charles Appiah on its own initiative. The judgment does not specify the reasons for these rulings because it refers to a separate opinion and order.
The court denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and the case was closed. The judge is not identified in the provided text; the judgment was entered by Clerk Ruby J. Krajick on February 9, 2021.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. N.Y.C. Department of Correction · No. 1:19-cv-03887
- Feb. 9, 2021
Disposition
The judgment states that, for the reasons in a separate opinion and order dated February 9, 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the City of New York, Captain Avin, and Deputy Warden Mitchell. It separately states that the claims against Physician’s Assistant Charles Appiah were dismissed by the court on its own initiative. The text provided does not include the separate opinion and order, so it does not reveal the claims, the parties’ arguments, or the court’s reasoning.
Appeal and Case Status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment states that the case was closed.
Judge
The provided judgment does not identify the presiding judge. It was dated in New York, New York, on February 9, 2021, and signed on behalf of the clerk’s office by Deputy Clerk Ruby J. Krajick.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.