Layou v. Crews et al

Filing 111

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 107 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendants Douglas K. Crews and Michael Stafford's Motion (Dkt. No. 92 ) for summary judgment is GRANTED in part as to Plaintiffs access to courts claim against Defendant Stafford and DENIED in part as to Plaintiff's unlawful seizure, false arrest, and excessive force claims against Defendant Crews. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 9/29/15. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL JAMES LAYOU,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:11-cv-0114 (LEK/RFT)

DOUGLAS K. CREWS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August
19, 2015, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 107 (“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 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. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid
v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07 & 306 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.”). “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).
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court
has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 107) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants Douglas K. Crews and Michael Stafford’s Motion (Dkt. No.
92) for summary judgment is GRANTED in part as to Plaintiff’s access to courts claim against
Defendant Stafford and DENIED in part as to Plaintiff’s unlawful seizure, false arrest, and
excessive force claims against Defendant Crews; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

September 29, 2015
Albany, NY

2