Jones v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Defendants' motion for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings is granted and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as provided in the enclosed Order Adopting Report and Recommendation. Th e clerk of court is respectfully requested to enter judgment in favor of defendants, and mail a copy of this order to plaintiff at 3334 Curtis Drive, #203, Suitland, MD 20746, along with a packet of appellate procedures. The clerk of court is further respectfully requested to close this case. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/19/2013. (Raghunathan, Abhishek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------X
CHARLES E. JONES, JR.,
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

- against FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, RAY BROOK, FCI
WARDEN, MR. PURDUE, PROPERTY OFFICER
(R&D), MR. REOME, UNITED STATES, U.S.
CUSTOMS N.E. REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

11-CV-4733 (KAM)(MDG)

Defendants.
--------------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Charles E. Jones, Jr., appearing pro se and
in forma pauperis, brought this action on September 28, 2011
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.
9/28/2011.)

(Complaint, ECF No.1,

Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were

violated when defendant Officer Mark Reome mailed plaintiff’s
personal property from the Federal Correctional Institution in
Ray Brook to his sister, who was also plaintiff’s designated
agent.

(Id.)

On September 14, 2012, defendants filed a motion

to dismiss on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c), 12(h)(3), and, in the alternative, summary
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a).
On April 1, 2013, this court referred defendants’
motion to Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go for a Report and

1

Recommendation.

(Order dated 4/1/2013.)

Magistrate Judge Go

issued a Report and Recommendation on August 14, 2013.

(ECF No.

33, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), 8/14/2013.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b), plaintiff has 14 days from service to
file written objections.

The R&R explicitly stated that the

parties had to file written objections by September 3, 2013,
(R&R at 32-33), and a copy of the R&R was mailed to plaintiff to
the address he had provided, and at which he had previously
received service of motion papers, on August 14, 2013, (ECF No.
34, Scheduling Order, 9/3/13.)

After the R&R was returned to

sender by the U.S. Post Office, Judge Go’s chambers sent a copy
of the R&R via Federal Express to another address provided by
plaintiff in his submissions and extended his time to file
objections to September 18, 2013.
Order, 9/3/13.)

(ECF No. 34, Scheduling

Petitioner has not filed any objections despite

efforts by the court to send copies of the R&R to him to two
addresses, including the address at which he had previously been
served with motion papers.

Plaintiff has previously been

advised of his obligation to promptly advise the court and
defendants of any and all changes in his mailing address.
(Minute Entry dated 6/11/2012.)
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district

2

court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”
§ 636(b)(1)(C).

28 U.S.C.

Where no objection to the Report and

Recommendation has been filed, the district court “need only
satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on the face of
the record.”

Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10

(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186,
1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citations omitted)).
Upon a review of R&R, and considering that the parties
have failed to object to any of Magistrate Judge Go’s thorough
and well-reasoned recommendations, the court finds no clear
error in Magistrate Judge Go’s Report and Recommendation and
hereby affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the
opinion of the court.

3

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment
and for judgment on the pleadings is granted and plaintiff’s
complaint is dismissed.

The clerk of court is respectfully

requested to enter judgment in favor of defendants, and mail a
copy of this order to plaintiff at 3334 Curtis Drive, #203,
Suitland, MD 20746, along with a packet of appellate procedures.
The clerk of court is further respectfully requested to close
this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

September 19, 2013
Brooklyn, New York

________/s/ _____
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge

4