Wallace v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision et al

Filing 93

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: SO ORDERED that the Court accepts the Report in its entirety. For the reasons set forth in the Report, Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. CM to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 8/10/2015. (Florio, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
LYNDA M. FREGO,
Plaintiff,

FILED 
CLERK 

8/10/2015 2:35 pm

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

ORDER
11-CV-5462(SJF)(SIL)

-againstPAROLE OFFICER F. KELSICK and
SENIOR PAROLE OFFICER
SENZAMICI,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------X
FEUERSTEIN, J.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke’s Report and Recommendation,
dated April 15, 2015 [Docket Entry No. 91 (“Report”)], 1 recommending that defendants’ motion
for summary judgment [Docket Entry No. 86 (“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment”)]
be granted, pro se plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Entry No. 88 (“Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment”)] be denied, and the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. The
Court has fully considered the submissions made by defendants and plaintiff, and plaintiff’s pro
se status. 2 For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety.
Any portion of a report and recommendation on a dispositive matter to which a timely
objection has been made is reviewed by the district court de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court, however, is not required to review the factual findings or legal

1

The facts underlying this action are set forth in the Report and are hereby incorporated by
reference. See Report, at 1-8.

2

Generally, a court should construe submissions by pro se plaintiffs liberally and “‘interpret them
to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’” Scott v. Rock, No. 10-civ-5989, 2013 WL 360398, at
*3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2013) (quoting Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006)).

conclusions of the magistrate judge as to which no proper objections are interposed. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). To accept the report and
recommendation of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter to which no timely objection has
been made, the district judge need only be satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the
record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Johnson v. Goord, 487 F. Supp. 2d 377, 379 (S.D.N.Y.
2007), aff’d, 305 F. App’x 815 (2d Cir. Jan. 9, 2009); Baptichon v. Nev. State Bank, 304 F. Supp.
2d 451, 453 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), aff’d, 125 F. App’x 374 (2d Cir. Apr. 13, 2005). Whether or not
proper objections have been filed, the district judge may, after review, accept, reject, or modify
any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b).
No objections to Magistrate Judge Locke’s Report have been filed and the time to file
objections has passed. Upon review, the Court is satisfied that the Report is not facially
erroneous. Accordingly, the Court accepts the Report in its entirety. For the reasons set forth in
the Report, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and
close this case.

SO ORDERED.
s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge
Dated: August 10, 2015
Central Islip, New York

2