Reed v. Doe et al
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that Defendants' Objections, dkt. # 57, to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 56 , are hereby OVERRULED. ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED. ORDERED, that the Def endants' Motion for Summary Judgment, dkt. # 53 , is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Superintendent are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant John Doe 1 are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 3/3/15. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BENJI D. REED,
JOHN DOE, 1 and SUPERINTENDENT,
Eastern Correctional Facility,
DECISION & ORDER
Thomas J. McAvoy, Senior District Judge.
This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleges
violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights as a result of being served contaminated food while a
prisoner at Eastern Correctional Facility in New York. The matter was referred to David E.
Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).
In the Report-Recommendation, dated January 30, 2015, Magistrate Judge
Peebles recommends that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted with
prejudice with respect to the Superintendent and without prejudice with respect to John
Doe, 1. See dkt. # 56. The Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.
Defendants filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), arguing that the motion should be granted with prejudice with respect
to both the Superintendent and the unnam ed Defendant. When objections to a magistrate
judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a “de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
the objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the
Defendants’ objections, this Court has determined to accept the recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Peebles for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Defendants’ Objections, dkt. # 57, to the Report-Recom mendation of Magistrate
Judge Peebles, dkt. # 56, are hereby OVERRULED;
(2) The Report-Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED;
(3) The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dkt. # 53, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant Superintendent are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant John Doe 1 are hereby DISMISSED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2015
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?