Perry v. Ogdensburg Correctional Facility et al

Filing 49

ORDER: ORDERED that 48 Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety. ORDERED that 44 Motion to dismiss is denied. ORDERED, that this mattered is REFERRED to Judge Dancks for the holding of an evidentiary hearing regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 12/20/13. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HOWARD PERRY, Plaintiff, -against- 9:10-CV-1033 (LEK/TWD) AMANDA RUPERT; et al., Defendants. ___________________________________ ORDER This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on October 16, 2013, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 48 (“Report-Recommendation”). 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); L.R. 72.1(c). “If no objections are filed . . . reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error.” Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008). No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error or manifest injustice. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 48) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants Motion (Dkt. No. 44) to dismiss is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that this mattered is REFERRED to Judge Dancks for the holding of an evidentiary hearing regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 20, 2013 Albany, New York 2

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?