Steptoe v. The City of Syracuse et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magsitrate Judge Peebles' 58 Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denying Plaintiff's 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Neal P. McCurn on 12/15/2010. (amt) [Pltf served via reg. mail]

Steptoe v. The City of Syracuse et al

Doc. 63

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ================================================== LeCHRISTIAN STEPTOE, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF SYRACUSE and THE GENESEE GRAND HOTEL, Defendants. _________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES LeCHRISTIAN STEPTOE Plaintiff, pro se 1108 East Genesee Street, Apt. 302 Syracuse, New York 13210 OF COUNSEL 5:09-CV-1132 (NPM/DEP)

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. Paul G. Ferrara, Esq.

NEAL P. McCURN, Senior U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM - DECISION AND ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

This is an action brought by plaintiff LeChristian Steptoe ("plaintiff") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his civil rights by defendants City of Syracuse and The Genesee Grande Hotel ("Hotel"). Currently before the court for consideration is a Report and Recommendation ("ReportRecommendation") (Doc. No. 58) prepared on October 5, 2010 by the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge ("MJ Peebles") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(b) of the Northern District of New York, denying as premature the motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff. On October 20, 2010, plaintiff filed a timely objection to the ReportRecommendation. Doc. No. 59. Among other things, plaintiff argues that his summary judgment motion proves that the Hotel is a state actor, and for this reason, summary judgment on his Section 1983 claims should be granted. 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). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, but they must be "specific written" objections, and must be 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). "Where, however, an
2

objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error." Caldwell v. Crosset, 2010 WL 2346330 at * 1 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y.2008)). MJ Peebles has submitted a comprehensive and well-reasoned ReportRecommendation for the court's review. The court has considered plaintiff's objections to the Report-Recommendation and finds them unavailing, and a reiteration of his original arguments. In reviewing the Report-Recommendation for clear error, the court finds none. Accordingly, the Report-Recommendation issued by MJ Peebles is hereby approved and adopted in its entirety. SO ORDERED. December 15, 2010

3