Brooks v. The State of New York et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that 67 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. ORDERED that 60 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Ordered that Brooks' Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 31) is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 3/28/13. (Attachments: # 1 r&r of Judge Treece) {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
DERRICK BROOKS,
Plaintiff,

9:09-cv-743
(GLS/RFT)

v.
MICHAEL HOGAN, Commissioner,
O.M.H., et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Derrick Brooks
Pro Se
#172543
Central New York Psychiatric Center
P.O. Box 300
Marcy, NY 13403
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

DOUGLAS J. GOGLIA
Assistant Attorney General

Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff pro se Derrick Brooks commenced this action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he
was strip-searched at the Central New York Psychiatric Center (CNYPC),
where he resides. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 31.) Following dismissal of
several defendants and causes of action, (see Dkt. Nos. 26, 34), the
remaining defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56, (see Dkt. No. 60). In a Report-Recommendation and Order
(R&R) dated January 31, 2013, Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece
recommended that defendants’ motion be granted.1 (See Dkt. No. 67.)
Pending is Brooks’ objection to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 69.) For the
reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
II. Standard of Review
Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report
and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge.
If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and
recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No.
04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those

1

The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is
presumed.

2

cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general
objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and
recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error.2 See id.
III. Discussion
Despite being filed as an objection to Judge Treece’s R&R, Brooks’
March 12, 2013 submission is, in fact, a near-verbatim recitation of his
earlier-filed response in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. (Compare Dkt. No. 65, with Dkt. No. 69.) As such, Brooks’
“objection” is insufficient to compel de novo review. Having reviewed
Judge Treece’s R&R for clear error, and finding none, the court accepts
and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
IV. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Treece’s January 31, 2013 ReportRecommendation (Dkt. No. 67) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No.
60) is GRANTED; and it is further

2

“[A] report is clearly erroneous if the court determines that there is a mistake of fact or
law which is obvious and affects substantial rights.” Almonte, 2006 WL 149049, at *6.

3

ORDERED that Brooks’ Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 31) is
DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this MemorandumDecision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 28, 2013
Albany, New York

4