Gray v. Village of Ravena et al

Filing 8

DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart's 6 Report-Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that the following claims pertaining to Plaintiff's underlying State conviction are DISMISSED as set f orth in this Order. ORDERED that Defendant DeLuca is DISMISSED as a Defendant in this action; ORDERED that Plaintiff's Third and Fourth Causes of Action against Defendants Darlington, Johnson, Cross, and John or Jane Does remain PENDING as set forth in the Order; ORDERED that Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action remain PENDING to the extent that it asserts a claim for municipal liability against Defendant Village of Ravena and Defendant Coeymans Police Department for acts associated with Plaintiff's Third and Fourth Causes of Action. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 1/27/2017. (Copy served via regular mail)(mgh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
ROSCHEEM GRAY,
Plaintiff,
1:16-CV-1239
(GTS/DJS)

v.
VILLAGE OF RAVENA; COEYMANS POLICE DEP’T;
GREGORY DARLINGTON, Coeymans Chief of Police;
RYAN JOHNSON, Senior Investigator; JERRY
DELUCA, Senior Investigator; RYAN CROSS, Police
Officer; and JOHN OR JANE DOES, Police Officers,
Defendants.
________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
ROSCHEEM GRAY, 15-A-2033
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Lakeview Shock Incarceration Correctional Facility
P.O. Box T
Brocton, New York 14716
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Roscheem Gray
(“Plaintiff”) against the Village of Ravenna, Coeymans Police Department and several
employees of Coeymans Police Department (“Defendants”) alleging Defendants performed
illegal searches and presented false testimony and evidence in connection with Plaintiff’s 2013
conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, is United States
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s
claims relating to his underlying conviction be sua sponte dismissed as barred under Heck but
that Plaintiff’s claims pertaining to Defendants’ continued retention of his personal property

should remain. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation,
and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully
reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart’s thorough ReportRecommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation.1 Magistrate
Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably
applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted
in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the following claims pertaining to Plaintiff’s underlying State
conviction are DISMISSED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action against Defendants Johnson and Cross regarding
the first search of Plaintiff’s apartment;

(2)

Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action against Defendant Johnson regarding the
search warrant obtained for the second search of Plaintiff’s apartment, and against
Defendants Johnson, DeLuca and John or Jane Does for conducting the second

1

When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2

search of Plaintiff’s apartment;
(3)

Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action against Defendants Darlington, Johnson, Cross,
and John or Jane Does regarding an overall conspiracy related to the evidence
provided and/or withheld during the State criminal proceeding;

(4)

Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action against Defendant Village of Ravena to the
extent that Plaintiff seeks to hold the municipality liable for the acts/omissions
supporting Plaintiff’s First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant DeLuca is DISMISSED as a Defendant in this action; and it
is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third and Fourth Causes of Action against Defendants
Darlington, Johnson, Cross, and John or Jane Does remain PENDING to the extent that they
claim that these Defendants retained Plaintiff’s personal property without providing him with a
mechanism by which he could seek its return, and ignored his attempts to have such property
returned to him; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action remain PENDING to the extent that it
asserts a claim for municipal liability against Defendant Village of Ravena and Defendant
Coeymans Police Department for acts associated with Plaintiff’s Third and Fourth Causes of
Action; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue Summonses and forward them, along with
copies of the Complaint, to the U.S. Marshals Service for service upon Defendants Village of
Ravena, Coeymans Police Department, Gregory Darlington, Ryan Johnson, Ryan Cross and John

3

or Jane Does, and that Defendants shall respond to the Complaint in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: January 27, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

4