Tower v. Cuomo et al

Filing 7

DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting 4 R & R. Pltf's 1 Complaint is dismissed. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 1/9/15. [Served by cert. mail.](sfp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
JOSEPH H. TOWER,
Plaintiff,
1:14-CV-1183
(GTS/CFH)

v.
ANDREW CUOMO, Governor;
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Atty. Gen.; and
THOMAS CHASE, Correction Officer,
Defendants.
__________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
JOSEPH H. TOWER
Plaintiff, Pro Se
163 Brayton Hill Terrace
North Adams, Massachusetts 01247
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Joseph H. Tower
(“Plaintiff”) against the three above-captioned individuals (“Defendants”) arising from the results
of criminal and prison disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiff that occurred in or before 1990,
are (1) United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994), and the governing statute of limitations, and (2) Plaintiff’s Objection to the
Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 5.)
Even when construed with the utmost of liberality, Plaintiff’s Objection fails to contain a
specific challenge to Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation. (Compare Dkt. No.

5 [Objection] with Dkt. No. 4 [Report-Recommendation].) As a result, Plaintiff’s is entitled to
only a clear-error review of the Report-Recommendation, which level of review the ReportRecommendation easily survives: Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the correct legal
standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result,
the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. (Dkt.
No. 4.) The Court would add only that, even if the Report-Recommendation were subjected to a
de novo review, the Report-Recommendation would survive that review.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is
directed to enter judgment for Defendants and close this case.
Dated: January 9, 2015
Syracuse, New York

2