Robinson v. Federal Bureau Of Prisons et al
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The court ADOPTS the portion of the 132 Report and Recommendations addressing Jimenez's motion for summary judgment; accordingly, Jimenez's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Robinson's "Re-Submitted Revised Motion for Summary Judgment" is DENIED. Robinson's "Demand for Damages upon Finding for Summary Judgment against Defendants" is DENIED as moot. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 3/26/2012. (c/m to pro se; fwd'd for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U S DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.
* MAR282012 *
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
08-CV-902 (NGG) (LB)
Officer BRYAN JIMENEZ,
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge,
Plaintiff Jack Robinson brings this pro se action against Bryan Jimenez, a correctional
officer at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Robinson alleges that
Jimenez deprived him of his right to religious worship in violation of the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution. (Compl. (Docket Entry # 8).) Jimenez filed a motion for summary
judgment and provided Robinson with the requisite Local Rule 56.2 notice, (Mot. for Summ, J.
(Docket Entry # liS); Local Rule 56.2 Notice (Docket Entry # 117).) Robinson filed an
opposition, (Docket Entry # 119.) On October 31, 20 II, the court referred Jimenez's motion for
summary judgment to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a Report and Recommendation
("R&R"). (Docket Entry # 126.) Robinson subsequently filed a "Re-Submitted Revised Motion
for Summary JUdgment" seeking to add three defendants who were previously dismissed from
this action (Docket Entry # 127); and a "Demand for Damages upon Finding for Summary
Judgment against Defendants" (Docket Entry # 131).
On March 6, 2012, Judge Bloom issued an R&R recommending that the court grant
Jimenez's motion for summary judgment. (R&R (Docket Entry # 132) at 7-16.) And while
noting that Robinson's subsequent motions had not been fonnally referred, Judge Bloom
recommended denying these motions. (ld. at 16-17.) On March 23,2012, Robinson filed
written objections to the R&R.
When a magistrate judge issues an R&R and that R&R has been served on the parties, a
party has fourteen days to object to the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If the district court
receives timely objections to the R&R, the court makes "a de novo detennination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. [The district court] may accept, reject, or modifY, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). However, to obtain
this de novo review of a magistrate judge's R&R, an objecting party "must point out the specific
portions of the report and recommendation to which [he] object[s]." U.S. Flour Corp. v.
Certified Bakery. Inc., No. 10-cv-2522 (JS) (WDW), 2012 WL 728227, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6,
2012); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) ("[A] party may serve and file specific written objections
to the [R&R]." (emphasis added)). If a party "makes only conclusory or general objections, or
simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only
for clear error." Pall Corp. v. Entergris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Mario
v. P&C Food Markets. Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (holding that plaintiffs objection
to an R&R was "not specific enough" to "constitute an adequate objection under [ ] Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)"). Portions of the R&R to which a party makes no objection are also reviewed for clear
error. U.S. Flour, 2012 WL 728227, at *2.
Robinson's written objections do not point to any specific portion of the R&R to which
Robinson objects. Thus, the court reviews for clear error the portion of Judge Bloom's R&R
addressing Jimenez's motion for summary judgment. See id.; Pall, 249 F.R.D. at 51. The court
has reviewed Judge Bloom's well-reasoned R&R for clear error and finds none. Thus, the court
adopts this portion ofthe R&R.
Because Robinson's motions were not formally referred to Judge Bloom, the court will
consider these motions de novo. Nevertheless, the court fully agrees with Judge Bloom's
analysis of these motions. (See R&R at 16-17.) Robinson provides no persuasive reason for the
court to reconsider its previous Order dismissing Warden Lindsay, Reverend McDevett, and
Rabbi Homic from this action. (See Order Adopting R&R (Docket Entry # 55).) Moreover,
nothing in either of Robinson's motions alters the court's conclusion that summary judgment
should be granted in favor of Jimenez. Robinson's "Demand for Damages upon Finding for
Summary Judgment against Defendants" is therefore moot.
For the reasons set forth above, the court ADOPTS the portion of the R&R addressing
Jimenez's motion for summary judgment; accordingly, Jimenez's motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED. Robinson's "Re-Submitted Revised Motion for Summary Judgment" is
DENIED. Robinson's "Demand for Damages upon Finding for Summary Judgment against
Defendants" is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS U
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 2. (., 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?