Brown v. Graham et al

Filing 102

ORDER: ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Baxter's March 30, 2010 97 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety. ORDERS that Defendants Brown and McCarthy's 67 Motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as moot. ORDERS that p laintiff's 70 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendants' 78 cross-motion for Summary Judgment is granted and plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 3/31/11. (nas )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ GENEO BROWN, Plaintiff, v. H.D. GRAHAM, Supt., Auburn Correctional Facility; DAWSON BROWN, Dep. Supt. of Admin., Auburn Correctional Facility; DONALD SAWYER, Exec. Dir., CNY Psychiatric Center; HAROLD MEYERS, Forensic Unit Chief; C.O. EXNER, Auburn Correctional Facility; LT. HEAD, Auburn Correctional Facility; C. THOMAS, C.O., Auburn Correctional Facility; SHARPLES, R.N., Auburn Correctional Facility; SGT. PERRY, Auburn Correctional Facility; JOHN CULKIN, Dir., Mental Health Services; MCCARTHY, Corrections Captain, Defendants. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES GENEO BROWN 97-A-0463 Great Meadows Correctional Facility Box 51 Comstock, New York 12821 Plaintiff pro se OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Defendants SCULLIN, Senior Judge CHRISTINA L. ROBERTS-RYBA, AAG OF COUNSEL 9:07-CV-1353 (FJS/ATB) ORDER In a Report and Recommendation dated March 30, 2010, Magistrate Judge Baxter recommended that the Court (1) deny Defendants Brown and McCarthy's motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot; (2) deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and (3) grant Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 90. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, essentially raising the same arguments that he presented to Magistrate Judge Baxter. See Dkt. No. 99. When a party files specific objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the district court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). However, when a party files "[g]eneral or conclusory objections or objections which merely recite the same arguments [that he presented] to the magistrate judge," the court reviews those recommendations for clear error. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations and footnote omitted). After the appropriate review, "the court 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). Despite the conclusory nature of most of Plaintiff's objections, the Court has reviewed the record de novo in light of the issues that Plaintiff raised in those objections. Having completed that review, the Court finds his objections to be without merit. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Baxter's March 30, 2010 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further -2- ORDERS that Defendants Brown and McCarthy's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as moot; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED; and the Court further ORDERS the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2011 Syracuse, New York -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?