Gregory B. Wormuth

“The Honorable Gregory B. Wormuth, United States Magistrate Judge, filed a Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ... concluding that the Court should grant the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that Plaintiff Daniel O'Neill failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to all of the claims presented, as the Prison Litigation Reform Act ... requires.”

“recommended the following: (i) granting Defendants Blaine Rennie's and Sergeant Burns' Amended Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction ... all claims against these Defendants are dismissed without prejudice; and (viii) the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ... is hereby stricken as improperly filed, and leave to amend is denied as futile.”

“granting Defendants Lisa Keyes', Stephanie Legaretta', Lee Whitis', and Anna Martinez' Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment ... in favor of the Department of Homeland Security”

Sua sponte dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, after the pro se plaintiff filed no merits motion to reverse/remand despite an order to show cause and a further opportunity. Not a party motion; excluded from motion statistics.

“the Court agrees that the ALJ committed no reversible error and adopts Magistrate Judge Wormuth's PFRD ... (v) Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse and Remand, filed July 29, 2019 (Doc. 22), is granted in part and denied in part; (vi) the Court remands the case to the Social Security Administration for proceedings before a properly appointed ALJ.”

“1. Judge Wormuth's PFRD (Doc. 30) and Clarification (Doc. 34) are ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff Objections (Doc. 31) and Objections to Clarification (Doc. 35) are OVERRULED; 3. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 25) is DENIED; and 4. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice and a Final Judgement will be entered.”

“The Court adopts in part and rejects in part the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, filed February 12, 2014 (Doc. 27). The Ruidoso Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, Damages, and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, filed October 14, 2013 (Doc. 16), is granted in part and denied in part.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (doc. 15) is adopted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 (doc. 3) is DENIED.”

“For the foregoing reasons, the Archdiocese Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts IX, X, XIII and XIV of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (doc. 5) is GRANTED. Counts IX, X, and XIII are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Count XIV against the Archdiocese Defendants is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

“On October 18, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Landau's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff's Vicarious Liability claim (Count XI) with prejudice and Negligence/Premises Liability claim without prejudice.”

“Having found Plaintiff's Motion to for Leave to File His Third Amended Complaint for Damages for Violations of Civil Rights, Title IX, and Other Tortious Conduct (doc. 112) futile on all relevant claims, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.”

“Having given Plaintiff an opportunity to amend and advising him that, should it be denied, the remaining claims against Defendant Landau would be dismissed with prejudice, (see doc. 111 at 25), IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Negligence/Premises Liability claim (Count XII) against Defendant Landau is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“Defendant Chavez's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 127) is GRANTED as to Count II, and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Count VI, to be refiled after the parties have engaged in additional discovery.”

“The Archdiocese Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count VIII (doc. 131) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to be refiled after the parties have engaged in additional discovery.”

“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Defer Consideration of Motion for Summary Judgment and Permit Deposition Pursuant to Rule 56(D) and Declaration of Unavailability of Facts to Support Opposition, doc. 71, and GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity, doc. 46, as to Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity, id., as to Plaintiff's state law claims based upon a declination of supplemental jurisdiction and REMANDS this case to the Third Judicial District Court, Dona Ana County, New Mexico, for further proceedings.”

“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Defer Consideration of Motion for Summary Judgment and Permit Deposition Pursuant to Rule 56(D) and Declaration of Unavailability of Facts to Support Opposition, doc. 71”