Chris Hynes v. J. Squillace, Hearing Officer N. Buth, Correction Officer and Louis F. Mann, Superintendent

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the defendants had met their burden where the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff had committed “the most serious, if not all, of the prohibited conduct”
• noting that “[c]onsideration of efficiency and fairness militate in favor of a full evidentiary submission for the Magistrate Judge’s consideration” on a motion for summary judgment
• finding that for purposes of de novo review of magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, “the district court had discretion to consider evidence that had not been submitted to the [m]agistrate [j]udge”
• finding a sufficient justification where the defendants “plausibly asserted” that they originally failed to construe the complaint as raising a certain claim
• pre-hearing confinement in keeplock for twenty-one days did not deprive prisoner of liberty interest
• affirming district court’s finding because the prisoner “offered no evidence in support of his argument that his 21-day keeplock confinement was atypical or significant, notwithstanding his familiarity with the conditions of his own confinement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).