Thompson v. Schult et al

Filing 58

ORDER: ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' August 16, 2011 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in its entirety. ORD ERS that Plaintiff's motion to stay this action is DENIED as futile and moot. ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 3/27/12. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________________
RAHEEM THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:09-CV-685
(FJS/DEP)

BALDWIN, Officer, FCI Ray Brook and HENRY J.
SADOWSKI, Regional Counsel,
Defendants.
_________________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

RAHEEM THOMPSON
15766-014
FCI Fairton Correctional Facility
P.O. Box. 420
Fairton, New Jersey 08320
Plaintiff pro se
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY
100 South Clinton Street
P.O. Box 7198
Syracuse, New York 13261-7198
Attorneys for Defendants

CHARLES E. ROBERTS, AUSA

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
Currently before the Court are Magistrate Judge Peebles' August 16, 2011 Report and
Recommendation, see Dkt. No. 54, and Plaintiff's objections thereto, see Dkt. No. 56.
Plaintiff Raheem Thompson commenced this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort

Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff
alleged that, while he was incarcerated at the Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institute ("FCI Ray
Brook"), fellow inmates stole items of his personal property; Defendant Baldwin observed the
theft but did nothing to stop or correct it; and Defendant Sadowski violated his Fifth Amendment
due process rights by refusing to offer him a settlement in response to his administrative tort
claim filed pursuant to the FTCA concerning his property loss, thereby effectively denying him
an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See generally Dkt. Nos. 1, 23.1
On November 1, 2010, Defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment, in which they sought dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint in its
entirety on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies
and that his complaint failed to state a plausible due process cause of action. See Dkt. No. 39.
Prior to opposing that motion, Plaintiff moved this Court to stay the case to permit him to
exhaust his administrative remedies. See Dkt. No. 44. Plaintiff subsequently submitted papers in
opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. See
Dkt. No. 49.
In a Report and Recommendation dated August 16, 2011, Magistrate Judge Peebles
recommended that this Court treat Defendants' motion as a motion for summary judgment, rather
than a motion to dismiss, and grant Defendants' motion in its entirety because Plaintiff's only

1

Plaintiff commenced this action on June 15, 2009. See Dkt. No. 1. The Court
dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Dkt. No. 4. However, the Court
subsequently vacated that determination and allowed Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint
setting forth due process claims against Defendants Baldwin and Sadowski. See Dkt. No. 17.
Plaintiff timely filed his amended complaint on July 1, 2010. See Dkt. No. 23.
-2-

claim of substance — his due process claim — failed as a matter of law. See generally Dkt. No.
54. Magistrate Judge Peebles further recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff's motion to stay
as futile in light of Magistrate Judge Peebles' determination that no genuine issue of material fact
existed as to the merits of Plaintiff's due process claim. See id. Plaintiff objected to Magistrate
Judge Peebles' recommendation. See Dkt. No. 56.
Where a party makes specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, the Court conducts a de novo review. See Trombley v. Oneill, No. 8:11-CV0569, 2011 WL 5881781, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). Where a party makes no objection or makes only conclusory or general
objections, however, the Court reviews the report and recommendation for "clear error" only.
See Salmini v. Astrue, No. 3:06-CV-458, 2009 WL 1794741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009)
(quotation omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, a district court may decide to
accept, reject, or modify those recommendations. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625,
2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and
Recommendation in light of Plaintiff's specific objections. Having completed its review, the
Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' August 16, 2011 Report and Recommendation
is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion to stay this action is DENIED as futile and moot; and
-3-

the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and
close this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2012
Syracuse, New York

-4-