Benavides v. New York State Department of Correctional Services et al
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 99 in the LEAD CASE 9:08-cv-1031) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY. ORDERED, that Defendants Motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 48 in the LEAD CASE 9:08-CV-1031) each of the Plaintiffs respective Complaints is GRANTED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/31/10. (Decision and Order served on all non-ecf parties by regular mail) (alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JERRY PEREZ, et al. Plaintiffs, -againstNEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants. Lead Case 9:08-CV-1031 (LEK/RFT)
Member Cases 9:08-CV- 1050 (LEK/RFT) 9:08-CV-1059 (LEK/RFT) 9:08-CV-1117 (LEK/RFT) 9:08-CV-1181 (LEK/RFT) 9:08-CV-1192 (LEK/RFT) 9:08-CV-1266 (LEK/RFT) 9:08-CV-1268 (LEK/RFT) 9:08-CV-1316 (LEK/RFT) 9:09-CV-0015 (LEK/RFT) 9:09-CV-0096 (LEK/RFT) 9:09-CV-0217 (LEK/RFT) 9:09-CV-0317 (LEK/RFT)
DECISION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on March 17, 2010 by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. ReportRec. (Dkt. No. 99). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including Plaintiff Kevin Gentle's Objections, (Dkt. No. 100) ("Objections"), which were filed on March 26, 2010.1
No objections have been raised in the allotted time by any other Plaintiff with respect to Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation. The Court received a Response (Dkt. No. 101) from Plaintiff Edwin Taveras on March 29, 2010 informing the Court he had no objections to the ReportRecommendation. 1
It is the duty of this Court to "make 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). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. Where, however, an 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.'" Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citations and quotations omitted)). This Court has considered the Objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 99) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion to dismiss each of the Plaintiff's respective Complaints is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 31, 2010 Albany, New York
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?