Hawthorne v. Ruecker et al
Filing
14
DECISION and ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 13 Report and Recommendations. ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant City of Albany are DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the following claims REMAIN PENDING:(1)Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable search and seizure asserted against Defendants Anderson a nd Perkins; (2) Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest asserted against Defendants Anderson, Perkins, Ruecker, Norris, Cheban and Christ;(3) Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force asserted against Defendants Anderson and P erkins;(4) Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution asserted against Defendants Anderson, Perkins, Ruecker, Norris, and Cheban; and (5) Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment claim for violation of due process (arising from the deprivation of property) asserted against Defendants Anderson, Perkins and Christ. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 12/19/2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(khr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
DARRYL L. HAWTHORNE,
Plaintiff,
1:17-CV-0716
(GTS/TWD)
v.
TYSON RUECKER, Albany Police Officer,
in His Individual and Official Capacity;
DEVIN ANDERSON, Albany Police Officer,
in His Individual and Official Capacity;
SEAN PERKINS, Albany Police Officer,
in His Individual and Official Capacity;
ALEX CHEBAN, Albany Police Officer,
in His Individual and Official Capacity;
JOHN NORRIS, Albany Police Officer,
in His Individual and Official Capacity;
SERGEANT CHRIST, Albany Police Dept.;
and CITY OF ALBANY, NY,
Defendants.
___________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
DARRYL L. HAWTHORNE
Plaintiff, Pro Se
40 Anne Street
New York, New York 10038
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Darryl L. Hawthorne
(“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned police officers of the City of Albany and the City of
Albany, New York (“Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is United States Magistrate Judge
Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against
the City of Albany be dismissed, and that the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims remain pending.
(Dkt. No. 13.) 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 Dancks’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks 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, and Plaintiff’s claims
against the City of Albany are dismissed and Plaintiff’s other claims remain pending.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant City of Albany are DISMISSED
with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the following claims REMAIN PENDING:
(1)
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable search and seizure asserted
against Defendants Anderson and Perkins;
(2)
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest asserted against Defendants
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
Anderson, Perkins, Ruecker, Norris, Cheban and Christ;
(3)
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force asserted against
Defendants Anderson and Perkins;
(4)
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution asserted against
Defendants Anderson, Perkins, Ruecker, Norris, and Cheban; and
(5)
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim for violation of due process (arising
from the deprivation of property) asserted against Defendants Anderson, Perkins
and Christ; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to issue Summonses and forward them,
along with copies of the Amended Complaint, to the U.S. Marshal for service upon Defendants
Anderson, Perkins, Ruecker, Norris, Cheban, and Christ, and Defendants are directed to respond
in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: December 19, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?