Williams v. Rock et al

Filing 119

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 114 ) is APPROVED andADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion (Dkt. No. 107 ) for summary judgment is GRANTED. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 113 ) for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/13/15. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DEANDRE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:11-CV-0601 (LEK/TWD)

N. SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January
26, 2015, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 114 (“Report-Recommendation”). Plaintiff Deandre
Williams (“Plaintiff”) timely filed Objections.1 Dkt. No. 118 (“Objections”). Additionally before
the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 113 (“Motion”).
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. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A., 434 F. App’x 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011); 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

1

Although Plaintiff’s Objections were not received until March 6, 2015, they are dated
February 18, 2015. See Objs. Under the prison mailbox rule, the Court considers Plaintiff’s
Objections timely filed. See Tracy v. Freshwater, No. 01-CV-0500, 2008 WL 850594, at *1
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2008).

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.”).
In his Objections, Plaintiff generally asserts that this action is not frivolous and that he
suffers from a number of medical issues. See generally Objs. Because Plaintiff’s Objections consist
of general or irrelevant statements, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error
and finds none. Furthermore, because the Court grants Defendants summary judgment on all
remaining claims against them, Plaintiff’s Motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore moot.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 114) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. No. 107) for summary judgment is
GRANTED; and it is further;
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. No. 113) for a preliminary injunction is DENIED
as moot; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

March 13, 2015
Albany, New York

3