Case Name: Timothy THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Diane TOPOREK, Rosalyn Killinger, Carl J. Koenigsmann, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-14
Citations: 604 F. App'x 52
Docket Number: No. 14-865
Parties: Timothy THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Diane TOPOREK, Rosalyn Killinger, Carl J. Koenigsmann, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 52–53

Head Matter:
Timothy THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Diane TOPOREK, Rosalyn Killinger, Carl J. Koenigsmann, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-865.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 14, 2015.
Timothy Thomas, pro se, Alden, N.Y., for Appellant.
Barbara D. Underwood, Andrew B. Ayers, Zainab A. Chaudhry, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New-York, Albany, N.Y., for Ap-pellees.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge.
Judge Gregory H. Woods, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Timothy Thomas appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.), granting defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
Thomas, an inmate at the Wende Correctional Facility, sued three defendants employed by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His pro se complaint alleges that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On March 6, 2014, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Thomas appeals from that dismissal.
Thomas's appellate brief and an unusual notation on the district court's docket (see App. at 5, no. 12) reflect the likelihood that Thomas never received a copy of the district court's March 6, 2014 Decision and Order. In this unique case, in order to ensure that Thomas has a full and fair opportunity to challenge the merits of the district court's decision, remand is warranted.
We hereby VACATE and REMAND the judgment of the district court. On remand, the district court may issue a decision that is identical to its March 6, 2014 decision if it .wishes. The district court, however, must ensure delivery of all relevant documents to Thomas. If Thomas files another notice of appeal in this matter, he should attach a copy of this order, and the Clerk of Court is directed to waive the filing fee.