Vallen v. Pierre et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Judge Lindsay's R&R (Docket Entry 30) is ADOPTED in its entirety and Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 11) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff's claims for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities. Plaintiff's claim for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDIC E. Defendants' motion is DENIED with regard to (1) Plaintiff's claims for money damages against Defendants in their individual capacities, and (2) Plaintiff's claims against Defendants for injunctive relief. Those claims may proceed to discovery. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/23/2015. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------X
BARRY VALLEN,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-6541(JS)(ARL)

-againstMARIE PIERRE, CHERYL DENTON, LAURA
ANTINI, DAVID WEIGHMAN, Director of
Safety Department, Pilgrim Psychiatric
Center, and GORDON MAY, Chief of
Services, Pilgrim Psychiatric Center,
Defendants.
------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Barry Vallen, pro se
Pilgram Psychiatric Center
998 Crooked Hill Road, Ward 401
W. Brentwood, NY 11717
For Defendants:

Theresa N. Wilson, Esq.
N.Y.S. Attorney General’s Office
300 Motor Pkwy, Suite 230
Hauppauge, NY 11788

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are (1) Defendants’ motion to
dismiss (Docket Entry 11); and (2) Magistrate Judge Arlene R.
Lindsay’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that
this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to
dismiss (Docket Entry 30.)

For the following reasons, the Court

ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Pilgram

State

Barry

Psychiatric

Vallen

(“Plaintiff”),

Hospital,

commenced

a
this

patient

at

action

on

November 20, 2013,

alleging that defendants Marie Pierre, Cheryl

Denton, Laura Antini, and so called “7th floor administrator Jane
and John Does” (collectively, “Defendants”) violated his Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights by conducting improper searches of
his room and seizing his personal property.
Plaintiff’s

claims

are

liberally

(See Compl. at 4-8.)

construed

as

being

brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 11, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
oppose

Defendants’

(Docket Entry 11.)

motion

and,

on

Plaintiff did not

December

15,

2014,

the

undersigned referred Defendants’ motion to Magistrate Judge Arlene
R. Lindsay to issue a R&R on whether the motion should be granted.
(Docket Entry 29.)

On February 17, 2015, Judge Lindsay issued her

R&R recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part
Defendants’ motion.

(Docket Entry 30.)

Specifically, Judge

Lindsay recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted
with

regard

to

Plaintiff’s

claims

for

money

damages

against

Defendants in their official capacities, but that Defendants’
motion be denied with regard to (1) Plaintiff’s claims for money
damages against Defendants in their individual capacities, and (2)
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for injunctive relief in
Defendants’ official capacities. (See R&R at 16-17.)

2

DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
reject,

or

modify,

recommendations

made

in
by

whole
the

or

in

part,

magistrate

the

findings

judge.”

28

and

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the “court
need only satisfy itself 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Objections were due within fourteen days of service of
the R&R.

The time for filing objections has expired, and no party

has objected.

Accordingly, all objections are hereby deemed to

have been waived.
Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds
Judge Lindsay’s R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free
of clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
Judge Lindsay’s R&R (Docket Entry 30) is ADOPTED in its
entirety and Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 11) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with regard to
Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against Defendants in their
official capacities.

Plaintiff’s claim for money damages against

Defendants in their official capacities is therefore DISMISSED
3

WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants’ motion is DENIED with regard to (1)
Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against Defendants in their
individual

capacities,

and

(2)

Defendants for injunctive relief.

Plaintiff’s

claims

against

Those claims may proceed to

discovery.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

March
23 , 2015
Central Islip, New York

4