Dorsey v. Hogan et al

Filing 28

ORDER: ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Treece's March 4, 2011 Report- Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its en tirety; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED; and the Court further 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 3/27/2012. (ptm) (Copy served on plaintiff by regular mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________________
THOMAS DORSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:09-CV-976
(FJS/RFT)

DR. MICHAEL HOGAN, Ph.D., Commissioner of the
Office of Mental Health; and DR. TERRI
MAXYMILLIAN, Director, Sex Offender Treatment
Program, Central New York Psychiatric Center,
Defendants.
_________________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

THOMAS DORSEY
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27803
Plaintiff pro se
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendants

WILLIAM J. MCCARTHY, JR., AAG

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
Currently before the Court are Magistrate Judge Treece's March 4, 2011 ReportRecommendation and Order, see Dkt. No. 25, and Plaintiff's objections thereto, see Dkt. No. 26.
Plaintiff Thomas Dorsey commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, while he was involuntarily committed
for treatment at the Central New York Psychiatric Center ("CNYPC"), Defendants denied him
access to the courts and subjected him to certain unlawful policies and treatment under CNYPC's

civil confinement sex offender treatment program. See generally Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff
subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, in which he sought to enjoin Defendants
from enforcing Article 10 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law against him, which provides for
the involuntary civil commitment and treatment of certain individuals convicted of committing
sex crimes. See generally Dkt. No. 18. Defendants filed a response in opposition thereto. See
Dkt. No. 19.
On March 23, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), see Dkt. No. 12; and Plaintiff
opposed that motion, see Dkt. No. 15. In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated March 4,
2011, Magistrate Judge Treece recommended that this Court grant Defendants' motion to
dismiss, deny Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety. Magistrate Judge Treece found that, given Plaintiff's ongoing and pending Article 10
state-court civil confinement proceeding, the Younger1 abstention doctrine applied, thereby
warranting dismissal of Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and his claims for
injunctive relief in his amended complaint, and that Plaintiff's other claims were likewise without
merit. See Dkt. No. 25. Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge Treece's recommendation. See
Dkt. No. 26.
Where a party makes specific objections to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, the court conducts a de novo review of those recommendations. See Trombley
v. Oneill, No. 8:11-CV-0569, 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
1

See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971).
-2-

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. 9:05CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
All of Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation and
Order are vague, conclusory, and general. Therefore, the Court has reviewed the record for
"clear error;" and, having found none, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Treece's March 4, 2011 Report-Recommendation and
Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety; and the Court
further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED; and 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

-3-