Holmes v. LeClair et al

Filing 81

DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Baxter's 79 Report and Recommendations in its entirety; denying Plaintiff's 71 Motion for Summary Judgment; and granting Defendants' 74 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the Plaintiff's amended complaint in its entirety. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 11/21/2012. (amt) [Pltf served via reg. mail]

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ REGINALD HOLMES, Plaintiff, vs. 9:09-CV-437 DARWIN LECLAIR, Supt., Franklin Correctional Facility, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER This pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). The Report-Recommendation dated October 11, 2012 recommended: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #71) be denied; (2) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #74) be granted; and (3) Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed in its entirety as to all Defendants. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation, essentially raising the same arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge in his motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #71) and his motion to stay and/or for extension of time (Dkt. #77). Plaintiff restates his conclusory claims against Defendants and concentrates heavily upon the 1 denial of his motion to stay and/or for an extension of time, stating this Court in fairness should grant him such relief. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. When objections to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the 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 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, 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.” Id. Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the Plaintiff’s objections, this Court has determined to accept in its entirety the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter for the reasons stated in the ReportRecommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that (1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #71) be DENIED; (2) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #74) be GRANTED; and (3) Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed in its entirety as to all Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 21, 2012 2

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?