Simmons v. Bezio et al

Filing 29

DECISION and ORDER: The 28 Report and Recommendation is accepted in whole. ORDERED that 21 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety. ORDERED that 25 Defendants' letter motion seeking summary judgment, based on plaintiff's failure to provide his current address is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 7/26/12. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------COREY SIMMONS,
Plaintiff,
9:11-CV-753
(DNH/ATB)

-vNORMAN BEZIO, Superintendent,1 Great
Meadow Correctional Facility; CHARLES
KELLY, Deputy Superintendent of Security,
Great Meadow Correctional Facility; J.
LINDSTRAND, Deputy Superintendent of
Administration, Great Meadow Correctional
Facility; TAYLOR, Correctional Guard, Great
Meadow Correctional Facility; and S.
WOODWORTH, Grievance Supervisor, Great
Meadow Correctional Facility,
Defendants.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

COREY SIMMONS
Plaintiff Pro Se
26 South Swan Street
Albany, NY 12210
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Attorney for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

KRISTA A. ROCK, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge

1

The Clerk is directed to am end the caption to correctly spell "Superintendent."

DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 21, 2012, the
Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by ReportRecommendation, that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and the
complaint be dismissed in its entirety, and that defendants' letter motion seeking summary
judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to provide his current address be denied as moot. No
objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed.
Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1).
Therefore it is
ORDERED that
1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 21, is GRANTED and the
complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety; and
2. Defendants' letter motion seeking summary judgment, Dkt. No. 25, based on
plaintiff’s failure to provide his current address is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2012
Utica, New York.

-2-