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)
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?