Little Snitch 3 Vs 4

To make use of it, on a server with a publicly routable IP address, you can start little-stitch with `little-stitch server`. Any data passed to stdin will be forwarded to the client when it connects. With the server running, on the computer running Little Snitch, you can start the client with the following.

Little Snitch 3 Vs 4

Tell the little gossip hounds in your life to remember what Mama always said: Mind Your Beeswax and stay out of other people's business. This graphic design tee is a cheeky wink at snoopy folks who just can't help but mind the business of others.

This Court previously denied defendant Corrections Officer Ruiz's motion to dismiss holding that a prison "guard's intentionally calling a prisoner a snitch in order to cause him harm by other inmates states an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim." Watson v. McGinnis, 964 F. Supp. 127, 131 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). The parties having completed discovery, Officer Ruiz now moves for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that Officer Ruiz's *816 summary judgment motion be granted because Watson has failed to submit any admissible evidence that Officer Ruiz called Watson a snitch.[1]

Watson testified at his deposition that while Officer Ruiz did not say it directly to Watson, Officer Ruiz told other inmates that Watson was a "snitch." (Watson Dep. at 27-28.) Watson testified that four fellow inmates Kermit Williams, Samuel Cortez, Eugene Jackson and Angel Rosado "heard Officer Ruiz call me a snitch in the TV area at about 11:15" on March 23. (Watson Dep. at 27-30; see also Prudenti Aff. Ex. D: Ruiz 3/23/96 Letter to Supt. McGinnis at 2-3.)

Fearing reprisals for being labeled a snitch, Watson wrote Superintendent McGinnis a letter on March 23, 1996. (Watson Dep. at 31; Prudenti Aff. Ex. D: Watson Letter to McGinnis; Ruiz Rule 56.1 Stmt. 18.) Watson wrote in the letter that Officer Ruiz "approached T.V. area of [cell] block, turned down the T.V. and told inmates in [the] area: `Watson told me that you guys had something to do with this [breaking a wire junction box near the T.V.], so I locked him up so than you don't hurt him for being a snitch.'" (Prudenti Aff. Ex. D at 2; see also Ruiz Rule 56.1 Stmt. 19.) Watson complained that calling an inmate a snitch "is a horrible thing to do to an [inmate].... I could very well be scarred for life, or even killed." (Prudenti Aff. Ex. D at 3.) Watson requested that Superintendent McGinnis release *817 him from keeplock to general population status so he could dispel the rumor that he was a snitch. (Id.; see also Ruiz Rule 56.1 Stmt. 20; Watson Dep. at 85.)

Watson testified that he was temporarily released from his cell by Officer Decker during the evening on March 26, 1996. (Ruiz Rule 56.1 Stmt. 23; Watson Dep. at 62-63; Prudenti Aff. Ex. E: Disciplinary Hearing Tr. at 4.) Watson was approached by inmate McGraw,[3] who was brandishing a makeshift knife and mumbling about how Watson was a snitch. (Watson Dep. at 64-66; Ruiz Rule 56. Stmt. 24; Prudenti Aff. Ex. E at 5.) After exclaiming "snitches get stitches," McGraw attacked Watson. (Watson Dep. at 67; see also, id. at 54-55; Prudenti Aff. Ex. E at 6.) The altercation ended when Watson pushed McGraw off the tier, a drop of around twelve feet. (Watson Dep. at 70; Prudenti Aff. Ex. E at 6.) Watson sustained cuts and scratches on his neck. (Ruiz Rule 56.1 Stmt. 26; Watson Dep. at 74-75.) Officer Decker and twenty other inmates watched the altercation, but did not intercede. (Watson Dep. at 66, 68.)

The next day, March 27, 1996, Officer Ruiz asked Watson whether he was involved in an altercation the previous night. (Ruiz Rule 56.1 Stmt. 27; Watson Dep. at 34-35.) Watson initially denied it, but when further questioning showed that Ruiz already knew about the incident, Watson admitted it. (Watson Dep. at 35-38; Ruiz Rule 56.1 Stmt. 28-29.) When asked at his deposition why he lied to Officer Ruiz about the altercation, Watson responded that since he was already "noted for being a snitch," he did not want to exacerbate this rumor by providing an officer information about another inmate. (Watson Dep. at 38.)

In the only portion of his pro se complaint still surviving (see footnote 1, above), Watson alleges a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim of excessive force against Officer Ruiz for calling him a snitch, which, according to Watson, led to McGraw's attack.

In denying Officer Ruiz's motion to dismiss, this Court held that a prison "guard's intentionally calling a prisoner a snitch in order to cause him harm by other inmates states an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim." Watson v. McGinnis, 964 F. Supp. at 132.[4] After completion of discovery, Ruiz's summary judgment motion should be granted, however, because Watson has not presented any admissible evidence that Officer *819 Ruiz called him a snitch. As the Supreme Court stated in Celotex:

An essential element of Watson's case is that Officer Ruiz called Watson a snitch. Watson admitted at his deposition that he never heard Officer Ruiz call him a snitch. (Watson Dep. at 27-28.) Watson merely testified that other inmates said that Officer Ruiz had called him a snitch. (Watson Dep. at 27-30.) What other inmates (allegedly) told Watson, however, constitutes hearsay and is therefore inadmissible. See, e.g., Reyes v. Koehler, 815 F. Supp. 109, 113 (S.D.N.Y.1993); see also, e.g., Gostanian v. Bendel, 1997 WL 214966 at *9 (S.D.N.Y. April 25, 1997); Mueller v. County of Westchester, 943 F. Supp. 357, 359 (S.D.N.Y.1996), aff'd, 122 F.3d 1056 (2d Cir. 1997).

Watson cannot complain that he was not aware that he needed to oppose Ruiz's summary judgment motion with admissible evidence that Ruiz called him a snitch. When a month passed without Watson responding to defendant Ruiz's motion, the Court ordered Watson to do so and directed Watson's attention to paragraphs H and I of the "Rules of Procedure Before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck," a copy of which was provided to Watson. (Order dated 8/22/97.) My Rules paragraph H provides:

Watson has not presented any such evidence. Indeed, although two months have passed since Ruiz's motion and one month has passed since my Order, Watson has not responded at all to defendants' summary judgment motion.[5] Since Watson was *820 warned of the consequences of his failure to submit admissible evidence, and since Watson has presented no admissible evidence that Officer Ruiz called him a snitch, Watson has not established an essential element of his case and thus Officer Ruiz's summary judgment motion should be granted.

After disabling those checkboxes and surfing around, I found that little snitch does not inform me of any remote access attempts other than to the websites I'm trying to browse, and the external links they contain.

The all-star comedy The Big Weddingwas rejected by moviegoers entering the charts at number four with an estimated$7.5M. Lionsgate averaged a dismal $2,848 from 2,633 theaters with theR-rated nuptials pic which boasted an impressive cast featuring RobertDe Niro, Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon, Robin Williams, Katherine Heigl,Amanda Seyfried, and Topher Grace. Reviews were dreadful and the marketingpush was typical for a film dumped out at the end of April. With summerblockbusters beginning their invasion of multiplexes on the first weekendof May, the latter part of April is a time when studios toss out contentthey have little faith in. Weddingskewed 77% female and 66% over 30 while earning a disappointing C+ CinemaScoregrade.