White v. Sears et al

Filing 24

ORDER: ORDERED, that Magistrate Judge Lowe's June 20, 2011 Report-Recommendation-Order (Dkt. No. 22 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. ORDERED, that defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint (Dkt. Nos. 16 , [ 20]) are GRANTED. ORDERED, that plaintiff may file an amended complaint within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order. ORDERED, that, if plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order, the Clerk o f the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further order of this Court. (Notice of Compliance Deadline 8/12/2011, Case Review Deadline 9/12/2011) Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 7/12/11. (Order served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ GEORGE WHITE, Plaintiff, vs. 9:10-cv-721 (MAD/GHL) L. SEARS, DOCTOR CHOLOM, DOCTOR ALI, and NURSE MONTROY, Defendants. ____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: GEORGE WHITE 138 Larkspur Lane Locus Grove, Virginia 22508 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 Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge: ORDER On June 21, 2010, plaintiff pro se filed the present action, alleging that he was denied adequate medical care in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Report-Recommendation-Order dated June 20, 2011, Magistrate Judge Lowe recommended that the Court grant defendants' motions to dismiss and that the Court allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this Court's order adopting his recommendations. See Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiff failed to object to Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation-Order. When a party files specific objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the district court makes 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)(1). When a party fails to make specific objections, however, the court reviews the magistrate judge's report for clear error. See Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Gamble v. Barnhart, No. 02CV1126, 2004 WL 2725126, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2004) (citations omitted). After the appropriate review, "the court 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). Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Lowe's June 20, 2011 Report-Recommendation-Order and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Lowe correctly determined that plaintiff's complaint fails to state claim. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Lowe's June 20, 2011 Report-Recommendation-Order is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further ORDERS that defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint (Dkt. Nos. 16, 20) are GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that plaintiff may file an amended complaint within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order; and the Court further ORDERS that, if plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further order of this Court; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties in compliance with the Local Rules. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 12, 2011 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?