Santiago v. Johnson et al
Filing
101
ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 98 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 81 ) for summary judgment is DENIED. ORDERED, that Defendants' Cross-Motion (Dkt. No. 82 ) for summary judgment is GRANTED. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 1/19/16. {order served via regular mail and via certified mail/return receipt}(nas, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MARTIN SANTIAGO,
Plaintiff,
-against-
9:11-cv-0635 (LEK/TWD)
PATRICK M. JOHNSTON, Physician
Assistant, Upstate Correctional Facility;
and NANCY SMITH, Nurse Administrator,
Upstate Correctional Facility,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on November
16, 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. 98 (“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.1 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. 98) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. No. 81) for summary judgment is DENIED; and
it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Cross-Motion (Dkt. No. 82) 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 on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
January 19, 2016
Albany, NY
1
On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Letter Motion requesting an extension of time in
which to file objections. Dkt. No. 99. The Court granted Plaintiff an extension to December 21,
2015. Dkt. No. 100. Plaintiff failed to file objections within the time period allotted to him by the
extension.
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?