Walker v. LaValley et al
Filing
88
DECISION AND ORDER: The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Hummel's recommendations for the reasons stated in his July 8, 2014 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 84 ). Defendants' motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 40 ) is GRANTED and all claims against all defendants are DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court may enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close this file. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/23/14. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
TYRONE WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
9:12-CV-807
THOMAS LaVALLEY, Superintendent,
Clinton Correctional Facility; S. BROWN,
Deputy Superintendent of Security, Clinton
Correctional Facility; CAPTAIN FACTEAU,
Captain and Acting Deputy Superintendent
of Security, Clinton Correctional Facility;
SERGEANT DELUTIS, Special Housing Unit,
Area Supervisor, Clinton Correctional Facility,
Defendants.
________________________________________
THOMAS J. McAVOY,
Senior United States District Judge
DECISION & ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Tyrone Walker (“Plaintiff” or ‘Walker”), an inmate currently in the custody of the
New York State Department of Correctional and Community Services (‘DOCCS”), brought this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his rights under the
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2009 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1
et seq. See Suppl. Compl. (Dkt. No. 48). Defendants moved for summary judgment, (Dkt. No.
40), which Walker opposed. (Dkt. No. 61). The matter was referred to the Hon. Christian F.
Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28
1
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule N.D.N.Y. 72.3(c).
In his July 8, 2014 Report-Recommendation and Order, Magistrate Judge Hummel
recommends that defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 40) be GRANTED as to
all claims against all defendants. See Rep.-Rec. & Ord. (Dkt. No. 84). Walker has filed
objections. (Dkt. No. 85).
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are lodged, the
district court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.1997)(The Court
must make a de novo determination to the extent that a party makes specific objections to a
magistrate's findings.). “[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.”
Machicote v. Ercole, 2011 WL 3809920, at * 2 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2011)(citations and interior
quotation marks omitted); DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp.2d 333, 340 (S.D.N.Y.
2009)(same). General or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same
arguments presented to the magistrate judge, are reviewed for clear error. Farid v. Bouey, 554
F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 n. 2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see Frankel v. N.Y.C., 2009 WL 465645 at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2009).
After reviewing the report and recommendation, 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
2
instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s objections are, for the most part, little more than cursory statements saying he
objects to Magistrate Judge Hummel’s conclusions because they were reached in error, or are
recitations of arguments presented in opposition to the motion. Reviewing those parts of the
Report-Recommendation and Order to which these objections are directed for clear error, the
Court finds none.
Furthermore, even when conducting a de novo review of those portions of the
Report-Recommendation and Order to which objections are made, the Court accepts and
adopts Magistrate Judge Hummel’s recommendations for the reasons stated in his thorough
report.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge
Hummel’s recommendations for the reasons stated in his July 8, 2014 Report-Recommendation
and Order (Dkt. No. 84). Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 40) is
GRANTED and all claims against all defendants are DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Court may enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close this file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:September 23, 2014
3
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?