Nelson v. Wright et al
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece's October 20, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 22) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B )(ii), Nelson's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 19 ) 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 Memorandum- Decision and Order to the parties by mail and certified mail. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 12/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recomendation) (ptm) (Copy of MDO and attached Report and Recommendation served on plaintiff by certified mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LESTER WRIGHT et al.,
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Elmira Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 500
Elmira, NY 14902
FOR THE DEFENDANTS
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
Albany, NY 12224
CHRISTOPHER W. HALL
Assistant Attorney General
Gary L. Sharpe
District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff pro se Dennis Nelson brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated by defendants. (See
Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 19.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R)
filed October 20, 2011, Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece
recommended that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Nelson’s
Amended Complaint be dismissed.1 (See generally R&R, Dkt. No. 22.)
Pending are Nelson’s objections to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 23.) 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
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. See id.
The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is
Nelson’s “objections” consist of factual allegations which discuss the
care, or lack thereof, that defendant Dr. Vadlamudi provided to him. (See
Dkt. No. 23 at 1-2.) The facts provided discuss the seriousness of his
injury, the treatments prescribed, and the results of these treatments. (See
id.) However, what Nelson fails to appreciate is that the principal
deficiency Judge Treece found was his inability to show that Dr. Vadlamudi
acted with the requisite state of mind to sustain an Eighth Amendment
claim. (See R&R at 4.) Even if Nelson did not exacerbate his own injury,
as he now claims he did not (see Dkt. No. 23 at 2), this still does not
equate to a showing that Dr. Vadlamudi was deliberately indifferent to
Nelson’s condition, (R&R at 4-6). In sum, none of his “objections”
reference a perceived error by Judge Treece.
Because Nelson fails to raise any specific errors in the R&R, the
court concludes that a de novo review is unnecessary. Having found no
clear error in the R&R, the court accepts and adopts Judge Treece’s R&R
in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece’s October 20,
2011 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 22) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Nelson’s
Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 19) 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 by mail and certified mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 5, 2011
Albany, New York
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?