Cole v. Kooi et al

Filing 73

ORDER: ORDERED that 71 Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety. ORDERED that 61 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 8/6/13. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANTONIO COLE, Plaintiff, -against- 9:11-CV-0004 (LEK/RFT) PANG LAY KOOI, Doctor, Auburn Correctional Facility; et al., Defendants. ___________________________________ ORDER This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on July 19, 2013, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, 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. 71 (“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). A court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where, however, an objecting “party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, [a court] reviews [a report-recommendation] only for clear error.” Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)); see also Brown v. Peters, No. 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997). “A [district] judge . . . 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)(1). Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report-Recommendation on July 31, 2013. Dkt. No. 69 (“Objections”). In his Objections, Plaintiff states only that he objects to the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. Id. Such a broad, generalized objection warrants clear-error, rather than de novo, review. See Farid, 554 F. Supp. at 306. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court determines that the Report-Recommendation is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 71) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. No. 61) for summary judgment is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; 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: August 06, 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?