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]

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