Gonzalez v. Sawyer et al

Filing 41

ORDER: ORDERED that 40 Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety. ORDERED that 36 Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to appear for deposition is DENIED. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice against Defendant J. Nadeau, based upon Plaintiff's failure to effectuate service upon that Defendant within the prescribed time periods. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 2/6/12. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RAYMOND GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:10-CV-0312 (LEK/DEP)

DR. DONALD SAWYER; DR. SHADIA
HANNA; TODD HARMON, Security
Hospital Treatment Assistant; THOMAS
NITTI, Security Hospital Treatment
Assistant; MICHAEL NICOTERA,
Security Hospital Treatment Assistant; and
J. NADEAU, Security Hospital Treatment
Assistant,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January 6,
2012, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, 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. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 40).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings
and recommendations,” FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1(c). No objections have
been raised in the allotted time with respect to Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation.
Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation
is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 40) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to appear
for deposition (Dkt. No. 36) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice
against Defendant J. Nadeau, based upon Plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service upon that Defendant
within the prescribed time periods; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

February 06, 2012
Albany, New York

2