Walters v. Bare Hill Correctional Facility et al
Filing
57
DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that 55 Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety. ORDERED that 45 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to all claims. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/26/12. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SAMUEL WALTERS,
Plaintiff,
-against-
9:09-CV-1222 (LEK/DRH)
C.O. GARDNER and S. HANNA,
Defendants.
DECISION and ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on February
15, 2012, by the Honorable David R. Homer, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Dkt. No. 55 (“Report-Rec.”).
After fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned,
including the Objections by Plaintiff Samuel Walters (“Plaintiff”), which were filed on March 5,
2012. Dkt. No. 36 (“Objections”).
The Court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where,
however, an objecting “party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his
original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.” Farid
v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp.
2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Brown v. Peters, No.
95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997). “A [district] judge . . . may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court has considered the objections and undertaken
a de novo review of the record, and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be
approved and adopted in its entirety.
Plaintiff first objects on the basis that the Report-Recommendation examines the merits of
the claims he brought against Defendant C.O. Gardner (“Defendant Gardner”). Plaintiff states that
“C.O. S. Hanna is the only defendant in my action. I have made that clear in prior amendments. So,
please dismiss [Defendant] Gardner from [the] Complaint.” Obj. at 1. Although it appears that
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint does indeed name C.O. Gardner as a defendant, the Court
takes note of Plaintiff’s objection and dismisses Defendant Gardner from this action. Dkt. No. 49 at
1, 2.1
Next, Plaintiff objects to Judge Homer’s recommendation that summary judgment be
granted to Defendant C.O. Hanna on all claims. Obj. at 1-2. Accordingly, the Court must review
this portion of the Report-Recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court has therefore
reviewed Judge Homer’s findings and recommendations de novo – taking all of Plaintiff’s
objections into account – and reaches the same conclusion: the facts presented by Plaintiff are
insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish a § 1983 claim for failure to protect under the Eighth
Amendment.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 55) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45) is GRANTED
1
The Court also notes that Judge Homer recommended dismissing all claims against
Defendant Gardner. Report-Rec at 11.
2
as to all claims and all Defendants.
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
March 26, 2012
Albany, New York
3
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?