Parks v. Smith et al

Filing 59

DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Lowe's 57 Report and Recommendations; granting Defendants' 51 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the Plaintiff's remaining claims. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/9/2011. (amt) [Pltf served via reg. mail]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
JOSEPH PARKS,
Plaintiff,
9:08-CV-0586
(TJM/GHL)

v.

JOSEPH T. SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________
THOMAS J. McAVOY,
Senior United States District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred by this Court

to the Hon. George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and
Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule N.D.N.Y. 72.3(c). In his
March 29, 2011 Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lowe recommended that
Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 51) be granted. Plaintiff has filed
objections to this recommendation.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are lodged,

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.” See 28
1

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). General or conclusory objections, or objections which merely
recite the same arguments presented to the magistrate judge, are reviewed for clear error.
Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see Frankel v. N.Y.C.,
2009 WL 465645 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2009).1 After reviewing the ReportRecommendation, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C).
III.

DISCUSSION
Having reviewed de novo those portions of the Report-Recommendation that

Plaintiff has lodged objections to, the Court determines to adopt the recommendations for
the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Lowe’s thorough report.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the recommendations made by Magistrate Judge

Lowe in their entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 51) is GRANTED and the remaining claims in this action are
1

The Southern District wrote in Frankel:

The Court m ust m ake a de novo determ ination to the extent that a party m akes specific
objections to a m agistrate's findings. United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d
Cir.1997). W hen a party m akes only conclusory or general objections, or sim ply reiterates the
original argum ents, the Court will review the report strictly for clear error. See
Pearson-Fraser v. Bell Atl., No. 01 Civ. 2343, 2003 W L 43367, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2003);
Cam ardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Em ployees Pension Plan, 806 F.Supp. 380, 382
(W .D.N.Y.1992). Sim ilarly, “objections that are m erely perfunctory responses argued in an
attem pt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the sam e argum ents set forth in the
original [papers] will not suffice to invoke de novo review.” Vega v. Artuz, No. 97 Civ. 3775,
2002 W L 31174466, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002).
2009 W L 465645, at *2.

2

DISMISSED. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment and close the file in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated:September 9, 2011

3