Cyrus Y. Chung

“Because the Court finds ‘no clear error on the face of the record,’ it AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation and GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.”

“Defendants’ Jeff Long, Chris Barr, and Maureen Sheridan (CDOC Defendants) Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 80, is GRANTED;”

“Defendant Londenberg’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 90, is GRANTED;”

“1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 50) is GRANTED. 2. Because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice.”

“Defendants’ Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is DENIED.”

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, ECF No. 27, is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART;”

“the ALJ's finding that the plaintiff was not disabled for the entire period, supported by substantial evidence, implied also that the plaintiff was also not disabled for a closed period therein. For the reasons that follow, then, the ALJ's decision must be affirmed.”

“Because the ALJ failed (1) to obtain and consider the opinion of a medical expert on the question of the medical equivalence of the claimant's migraines to the Commissioner's Listing of Impairments and (2) to address a medical opinion he found persuasive that conflicted with the residual functional capacity he articulated, the ALJ's decision must be REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.”

“Because the Commissioner is correct that, under current regulations, an administrative law judge (‘ALJ’) need not obtain and consider the opinion of a medical expert on the question of medical equivalence at step three of the evaluation process and because substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ's decision that the plaintiff's migraines were not the equivalent of a per se disability, the Commissioner's motion is GRANTED.”

“ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 69] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the claims against defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.”

“the plaintiffs have standing, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over two defendants, the Act has some extraterritorial reach, and the plaintiffs sufficiently plead the claim they can assert extraterritorially. As such, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

“Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the first claim, the Court grants the motion as to that claim. Due to a lack of evidence of any infection resulting from removal of the sutures, the Court also grants the motion as to the second claim.”

“The plaintiff argues that the Court (1) misapplied the discretionary function exception, (2) improperly resolved a factual dispute, and (3) rigidly applied procedural rules, resulting in manifest injustice. Because none of these arguments compel the relief requested, the motion is denied.”