Houston v. Wright et al

Filing 125

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 119 ) of United States Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks is accepted. ORDERED that the sole remaining claim in the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 14 ), th e conditions-of-confinement claim against Dr. Johnson is dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). ORDERED that the case is dismissed. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 9/15/14. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

Douglas Houston, also known as Houston Douglas,
Plaintiff,
-v-

9:10-CV-1009 (NAM/TWD)

Lester N. Wright and Doctor Johnson,
Defendants.
N
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

APPEARANCES:
Marris & Bartholomae P.C.
Richard F. Marris, Esq., of counsel
317 Montgomery Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
Attorney for Plaintiff
A

Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York
Kevin M. Hayden, Esq., Assistant New York State Attorney
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorney for Defendants

Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Senior U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and
M

Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), brought this action for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In
his amended complaint (Dkt. No. 14), he claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs and subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. After
issuing a Memorandum-Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 74) dismissing plaintiff’s deliberate
indifference claim, this Court referred to Magistrate Judge Dancks the issue of whether plaintiff
exhausted his administrative remedies regarding the sole remaining claim, the conditions-of-

confinement claim against defendant Dr. Johnson. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule
72.3(c). After a hearing, at which plaintiff was represented by counsel, Magistrate Judge Dancks
prepared a Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 119) recommending that plaintiff’s
amended complaint (Dkt. No. 14) be dismissed with prejudice based upon his failure to comply
with the administrative exhaustion requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) in connection with his
conditions-of-confinement claim.
N

Plaintiff objects to the Report-Recommendation and Order, arguing that the grievance that
he filed regarding substandard medical care should be construed to “include[] the times spent in
the infirmary and the conditions therein.” He further argues that the conditions-of-confinement
claim was not distinct from but rather was “part and par[cel] of his entire claim of substandard
medical care.”

A

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo those parts of a report
and recommendation to which a party specifically objects. “The benefits of exhaustion can be
realized only if the prison grievance system is given a fair opportunity to consider the grievance.”
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 95 (2006). Informal complaints are insufficient to satisfy the
requirement. See Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 2007). Here, plaintiff’s grievance
clearly did not provide notice of his conditions-of-confinement claim, nor were his alleged

M

informal complaints to Dr. Johnson and others sufficient to meet the objectives of the
administrative exhaustion requirement. Therefore, upon de novo review, the Court agrees with
Magistrate Judge Dancks that defendant has “met her burden of showing that administrative
remedies were available to Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust those remedies regarding
his conditions of confinement claim.”

-2-

It is therefore
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 119) of United States
Magistrate Judge Terèse Wiley Dancks is accepted; and it is further
ORDERED that the sole remaining claim in the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 14), the
conditions-of-confinement claim against Dr. Johnson is dismissed with prejudice for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); and it is further
N

ORDERED that the case is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 15, 2014
Syracuse, New York

A
M

-3-