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)

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