Rahman v. Fischer et al

Filing 103

ORDER adopting 102 Report and Recommendations and granting 95 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 8/10/15 (served on plaintiff via regular mail). (rjb, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
SHA-HEED RAHMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:10-CV-1496 (BKS/TWD)

S. A. CONNELL, et. al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

Sha-Heed Rahman, Plaintiff pro se
90-A-0409
Otisville Correctional Facility
Box 8
Otisville, NY 10963
Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman
New York State Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

Tiffinay M. Rutnik, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge
ORDER
On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Sha-Heed Rahman filed a pro se amended complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that corrections officers at Mid-State and Oneida Correctional
Facilities violated his constitutional rights. (Dkt. No. 56). On December 5, 2014, defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiff’s sole remaining claim – that
defendants Susan Connell and Anne Joslyn violated plaintiff’s First Amendment right to exercise
his religion. (Dkt. No. 95). The motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Therese

Wiley Dancks who, on July 14, 2015, issued a Report-Recommendation and Order,
recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted because plaintiff failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Dkt. No. 102). Magistrate Judge Dancks advised
plaintiff that he had fourteen days to file written objections to the report and that the failure to
object within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Id., p. 9). The ReportRecommendation and Order was served on plaintiff by regular mail on July 14, 2015, and no
objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed. (Id.).
Since no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for
filing objections has expired, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error.
See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
advisory committee’s note to the 1983 addition. Under this standard, “the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Id. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation and having found no clear error, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 102) is ADOPTED in its
entirety for the reasons stated therein; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt No. 95) is GRANTED;
and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 56) is DISMISSED; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to close this case; and it is further

2

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon plaintiff in
accordance with the local rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 10, 2015
Syracuse, New York

3