Paul J. Evangelista

“RECOMMENDED, that defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 52) be GRANTED in its entirety;”

“Judge Evangelista advised by R&R that plaintiff's motion should be granted, the Commissioner's motion should be denied, the Commissioner's final decision should be vacated, and that this matter should be remanded ... The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22) is ACCEPTED; Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED; The Commissioner's motion is DENIED; The Commissioner's final decision is VACATED; and This action is REMANDED”

“issued a Report-Recommendation and Order recommending that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted. ... the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. ... Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 30, is GRANTED; ... Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED”

“U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista advised by Report & Recommendation (‘R&R’) that plaintiff's motion should be denied without prejudice. ... The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 50) is ACCEPTED; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 37) is DENIED without prejudice, and with opportunity to renew upon completion of discovery”

Multi-plaintiff pro se action against 14 defendants (70-page amended complaint). Evangelista's R&R (7/30/25) granted IFP, denied appointment of counsel, and recommended dismissal of the amended complaint (failure to comply with Rules 8/10; judicial & prosecutorial immunity; Rooker-Feldman/family-court bar; no Sec.1983 against private parties; pro se cannot sue on behalf of co-plaintiffs). D'Agostino adopted in full; dismissed WITHOUT prejudice with leave to amend within 30 days. Screening/pleading-sufficiency recommendation, excluded from contested-motion stats.

“RECOMMENDED, that the Commissioner’s cross-motion (Dkt. No. 15) be GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed”

Initial review of a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915 and 1915A. The Magistrate Judge granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, allowed certain First Amendment retaliation and assault claims against named individual defendants to survive review, and recommended that the plaintiff's official-capacity monetary-damages claims be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend, with leave to replead certain other claims. Screening disposition; no adversarial motion adjudicated. Representative recommendation: "RECOMMENDED, that insofar as plaintiff seeks to proceed against all defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages (Dkt. No. 4), such claims for relief be DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend."

Initial review of a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. section 1915 brought by two prisoner plaintiffs against a private criminal-defense attorney under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The Magistrate Judge granted the plaintiffs' in forma pauperis applications but recommended dismissing the complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, because the private attorney is not a state actor and the claims were also barred by Heck v. Humphrey; a request for class certification was recommended dismissed without prejudice. Screening disposition. Recommendation: "RECOMMENDED, that plaintiffs’ complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice and without opportunity to amend for failure to state a claim."

Initial review of a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. section 1915 alleging theft of belongings from a rental car and an insurer's failure to reimburse rental costs. The Magistrate Judge granted in forma pauperis status but recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice and without opportunity to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding no federal question and that the pleaded amount in controversy ($6,000-$8,000) fell below the diversity threshold. Because service had never been authorized, a defendant's motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel were both recommended dismissed as moot (procedural). Screening disposition. Recommendation: "RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice and without opportunity to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

Initial review of a pro se prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915 and 1915A asserting a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claim against a patrol officer. The Magistrate Judge granted in forma pauperis status but recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice and with opportunity to amend, finding the plaintiff failed to plead facts satisfying either the objective seriousness prong or the subjective culpability prong, and failed to plead a Monell claim for any official-capacity theory. Screening disposition. Recommendation: "RECOMMENDED, that plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice and with opportunity to amend."

“is GRANTED; and it is”

“dkt. no. 151, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”