Bell v. Galani et al

Filing 118

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 116 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion (Dkt. No. 102 ) for summary judgment is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment for Defendants; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this action.. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 9/19/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Report-Recommendation) (ptm) (Copy served on plaintiff by regular mail) (Attachment 1 replaced on 9/19/2013) (ptm, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LEWIS BELL, SR.,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:10-CV-1577 (LEK/TWD)

DR. SOHAIL A. GILLANI; J. THOMAS;
PAUL DAUGHERTY; JASON BEAN;
LYDIA BRENNAN; and JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August
30, 2013, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Northern District of New York Local Rule 72.3(d). Dkt. No. 116 (“ReportRecommendation”). Pro se Plaintiff Lewis Bell, Sr., brought Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claims arising out of his mental healthcare providers’ alteration of his psychiatric
medication regimen, an alteration Plaintiff alleges led to his suicide attempt. See generally ReportRec.; Dkt. No. 31 (“Complaint”). Judge Dancks recommends that Defendants’ Motion for summary
judgment be granted because Plaintiff’s providers explained the medical basis for their treatment
decisions and Plaintiff offered insufficient evidence to support his contention that those decisions
were based on factors unrelated to his medical needs. See Report-Rec. at 19-20; Dkt. No. 102
(“Motion”). Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Report-Recommendation, arguing that “[t]he
discontinued or substituted medication caused the suicide attempt because the . . . medication
substituted or discontinued was equal to no medication as set forth in . . . [P]laintiff’s Declaration in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.” Dkt. No. 117 (“Objections”).

A district court must review de novo any objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation or specific proposed findings or recommendations therein and “may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b); accord FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); see also Morris v. Local 804, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
167 F. App’x 230, 232 (2d Cir. 2006); Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory,
perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need
review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
434 F. App’x 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011); Barnes, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1; Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp.
2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 13320, 2011 WL
3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (“[E]ven a pro se party’s objections to a Report and
Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s
proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior
argument.”).
Here, Plaintiff’s Objections are entirely conclusory and merely reference and reiterate
arguments and evidence that were before Judge Dancks. The Court therefore reviews the ReportRecommendation for clear error. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the
record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not clearly erroneous or
manifestly unjust.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 116) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
2

ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. No. 102) for summary judgment is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment for Defendants; 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:

September 19, 2013
Albany, New York

3