Pilgrim v. Artus

Filing 78

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece's September 1, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 74 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that defendants motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 69 ) is GRANT ED and Pilgrim's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED. ORDERED, that the Clerk close this case. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 12/5/11. (Attachments: # 1 Report-Recommendation and Order) (served on plaintiff by regular and certified mail)(alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________
PRINCE PILGRIM,
Plaintiff,

9:07-cv-1001
(GLS/RFT)

v.
NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
and BRIAN FISCHER,
Defendants.
____________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Prince Pilgrim
Pro Se
92-A-8847
Attica Correctional Facility
Box 149
Attica, NY 14011
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
Albany Office
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

AARON M. BALDWIN
Assistant Attorney General

Gary L. Sharpe
District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction
Plaintiff pro se Prince Pilgrim brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated by defendants New
York State Department of Correctional Services and its Commissioner,
Brian Fischer.1 (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report-Recommendation
and Order (R&R) filed September 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge Randolph F.
Treece recommended that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 69) be
granted and Pilgrim’s Complaint be dismissed.2 (See generally R&R, Dkt.
No. 74.) Pending are Pilgrim’s objections to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 77.)
For the reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
II. Standard of Review
Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report
and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge.
If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and
recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No.

1

Commissioner Fischer was substituted as a party in accordance with this court’s
order of September 17, 2010. (See Dkt. No. 57.)
2

The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is
presumed.

2

04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those
cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general
objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and
recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id.
III. Discussion
Pilgrim alleges—largely by reciting paragraphs of legal
standards—that Judge Treece erred when he: (1) improperly summarized
the background of the case, and (2) recommended that the Complaint be
dismissed as moot. (See Dkt. No. 77 at 2, 4-6.) In addition to these
“objections,” Pilgrim reasserts his demand for a jury trial, and for monetary
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See id. 5-6.) The court addresses each of
these arguments in turn.
First, Pilgrim’s objection to the background is of no moment as Judge
Treece’s summary is neither objectionable nor error. Likewise, his second
objection, which focuses on his belief that the new directive is “vague,” was
already addressed in the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 77 at 5; R&R at 7.) Because
Pilgrim’s objection on this point merely repeats his previous argument, it
does not warrant de novo review. Finally, Pilgrim’s remaining claims,
regarding his demand for a jury trial and non-equitable relief under section
3

1983, were already addressed in the previous memorandum-decision and
order. (See generally Dkt. No. 57.) In sum, none of Pilgrim’s assertions
amount to an actual objection, and thus, de novo review is unnecessary.
Having found no clear error in the R&R, the court accepts and adopts
Judge Treece’s R&R in its entirety.
IV. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece’s September
1, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 74) is ADOPTED in
its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 69) is
GRANTED and Pilgrim’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this MemorandumDecision and Order to the parties by mail and certified mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 5, 2011
Albany, New York

4