Glendora v. Pinkerton Security & Detective Services
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Plaintiff Glendora pro se (“Glendora”) has moved to remand this action to the state court, for default judgment, and for recusal. Defendant Lawrence T. Nevins (“Nevins”) has moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and Glendora has cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Glendora’s motions to remand, for default judgment, recusal, and her cross-motion for summary judgment are denied, and Nevins’ motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint is granted.
Prior…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Rizzo v. GoodeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Glendora v. City of White PlainsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1999
- Gottesfeld v. HorwitzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020