Steptoe v. The City of Syracuse et al

Filing 140

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Peebles' 139 Report-Recommendation; granting Defts' 126 and 128 Motions for Summary Judgment. The deft Hotel is awarded costs and attorney's fees in the amount of $3,23 5.00. Defts are afforded the opportunity to file submissions re: costs and attorney's fees in connection w/the City's motion for sanctions w/in 14 days of the issuance of this order. Pltf's response to those submissions will be due w/in 14 days thereafter. Signed by Senior Judge Neal P. McCurn on 11/29/2011. (amt) [Pltf served via reg. and cert. mail]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
==================================================
LeCHRISTIAN STEPTOE,
Plaintiff,
v.

5:09-CV-1132 (NPM/DEP)

THE CITY OF SYRACUSE and
THE GENESEE GRAND HOTEL,
Defendants.
_________________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

LeCHRISTIAN STEPTOE
Plaintiff, pro se
1108 East Genesee Street, Apt. 302
Syracuse, New York
13210

City of Syracuse Law Department
Attorney for defendant City of Syracuse
233 East Washington St., 300 City Hall
Syracuse, New York
13202

Joseph R.H. Doyle, Esq.

Costello, Cooney & Fearon, PLLC
Attorneys for Genesee Grande Hotel
205 South Salina St., 4th Floor
Syracuse, New York
13202

Robert W. Connolly, Esq.
David P. Doherty, Esq.
Paul G. Ferrara, Esq.

NEAL P. McCURN, Senior U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM - DECISION AND ORDER
This is an action brought by pro se plaintiff LeChristian Steptoe (“plaintiff”)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his civil rights by defendants
City of Syracuse (“City”) and The Genesee Grande Hotel (“Hotel”). On
November 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles (“MJ Peebles”) issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report-Recommendation”) (Doc. No. 139)
pursuant to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 126, 128),
recommending that summary judgment be granted. In addition, the magistrate
recommended that judgment be entered in favor of defendant Hotel and against the
plaintiff in the amount of $3,235 (the sum awarded in costs and attorney’s fees on
July 14, 2011 (Doc. No. 124)), and that the defendants be awarded attorney’s fees
in connection with defendant City’s motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 117). Plaintiff
notified the court that he did not oppose the motions for summary judgment (Doc.
No. 131), and he did not file an objection to the Report-Recommendation.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge....” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)
(West 2011). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, but they must be “specific written” objections, and must be
2

submitted “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended
disposition.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). As noted
supra, plaintiff did not oppose the Report-Recommendation.
MJ Peebles has submitted a comprehensive and well-reasoned ReportRecommendation for the court’s review. Included is the magistrate’s
recommendation that the court review the defendants’ summary judgment motions
and, if appropriate, enter a merits-based determination in defendants’ favor, rather
than dispose of plaintiff’s claims on a procedural basis. After thoroughly
reviewing the Report-Recommendation, wherein MJ Peebles determined that
defendants’ motions for summary judgment were meritorious, and absent
objection from the plaintiff, the Report-Recommendation is hereby approved and
adopted in its entirety.
The defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 126, 128) are
hereby GRANTED on the merits of each as set forth in the ReportRecommendation. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment in favor of defendant
Hotel and against the plaintiff in the amount of $3,235 for costs and attorney’s
fees pursuant to the order of this court entered on July 14, 2011(Doc. No. 124). In
addition, counsel for the defendants are hereby afforded the opportunity to file
submissions quantifying their costs and attorney’s fees associated with the
3

defendant City’s motion for sanctions within fourteen days of the issuance of this
order, and plaintiff will be permitted to respond to said submissions within
fourteen days thereafter.
SO ORDERED.
November 29, 2011

4