Castro v. Heath et al
Filing
55
ORDER granting 50 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 54 Report and Recommendations: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' February 10, 2015 Report and Recommendationis ADOPTED in its entire ty for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 50) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety for failure to exhaust administrative remed ies; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and closethis case. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 3/10/15. [copy mailed to plaintiff at address listed on the docket] (ban)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
LUIS CASTRO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
9:12-CV-01250
(MAD/DEP)
WAYNE HEATH, Superintendent, Green
Correctional Facility; JANE DOE, Nurse,
Greene Correctional Facility; DR. CAULFIELD,
Greene Correctional Facility; and NURSE
ALBRIGHT, Greene Correctional Facility,
Defendants.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
LUIS CASTRO
09-A-1553
Wallkill Correctional Facility
Box G
Wallkill, New York 12589
Plaintiff pro se
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendants
JAMES SEAMAN, AAG
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
On August 6, 2012, pro se Plaintiff Luis Castro commenced this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of his civil rights under the United States
Constitution. Plaintiff's complaint, as amended, alleges that Defendants failed to provide him
with proper treatment for an ear infection while he was an inmate in the custody of the
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS").
On June 20, 2014, following the close of discovery, Defendants moved for summary
judgment dismissing Plaintiff's complaint. See Dkt. No. 50. In their motion, Defendants argue
both that Plaintiff's claims are procedurally barred based upon his failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies and that his deliberate medical indifference cause of action, the only
remaining claim, lacks merit. See Dkt. No. 50-22. In response to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff
filed a single paragraph submission, reiterating his claim that Defendants did not properly care for
his ear condition, causing him to lose hearing in his right ear. See Dkt. No. 53.
In a February 10, 2015, Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Peebles found
that, while Plaintiff initially took steps to comply with the requirement that he lodge a grievance
with prison officials and pursue it to completion before commencing this action, he filed his
action prematurely. See Dkt. No. 54 at 15. The report noted that Plaintiff commenced this suit
before even receiving an initial determination from the IGRC with respect to his grievance; and,
therefore, without first having appealed the adverse determination to the Superintendent at Greene
Correctional Facility ("Greene C.F.") and onto CORC. See id. In light of this failure, Magistrate
Judge Peebles found that Plaintiff is now precluded from maintaining this action and, therefore,
recommended granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. See id. Neither party
objected to the Report and Recommendation.
A court may grant a motion for summary judgment only if it determines that there is no
genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue
warrant judgment for the movant as a matter of law. See Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43
F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). When analyzing a summary judgment motion, the
court "cannot try issues of fact; it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried." Id. at
36-37 (quotation and other citation omitted). Moreover, it is well-settled that a party opposing a
2
motion for summary judgment may not simply rely on the assertions in its pleadings. See Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (e)).
In assessing the record to determine whether any such issues of material fact exist, the
court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party. See Chambers, 43 F.3d at 36 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2502, 2513-14, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)) (other citations omitted). Where
the non-movant either does not respond to the motion or fails to dispute the movant's statement of
material facts, the court may not rely solely on the moving party's Rule 56.1 statement; rather the
court must be satisfied that the citations to evidence in the record support the movant's assertions.
See Giannullo v. City of N.Y., 322 F.3d 139, 143 n.5 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that not verifying in
the record the assertions in the motion for summary judgment "would derogate the truth-finding
functions of the judicial process by substituting convenience for facts").
"[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than
that accorded to 'formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289,
295 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d
652 (1972)) (other citations omitted). The Second Circuit has opined that the court is obligated to
"make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants" from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights
merely because they lack a legal education. Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289, 295
(N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). "However, this does
not mean that a pro se litigant is excused from following the procedural requirements of
summary judgment. See id. at 295 (citing Showers v. Eastmond, 00 CIV. 3725, 2001 WL 527484,
*1 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2001)). Specifically, "a pro se party's 'bald assertion,' completely
unsupported by evidence" is not sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment." Lee v.
3
Coughlin, 902 F. Supp. 424, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Cary v. Crescenzi, 923 F.2d 18, 21 (2d
Cir. 1991)).
When a party files specific objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, 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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However
when a party files "[g]eneral or conclusory objections or objections which merely recite the same
arguments [that he presented] to the magistrate judge," the court reviews those recommendations
for clear error. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16,
2011) (citations and footnote omitted). After the appropriate review, "the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendation made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the present matter, Plaintiff filed a grievance concerning his medical care with the
Inmate Grievance Program ("IGP"), which is dated July 19, 2012. Dkt. No. 50-9 at 3; Dkt. No.
50-10 at 2. On July 23, 2012, the IGP supervisor acknowledged receipt of the grievance, advising
Plaintiff that a formal investigation would be conducted, followed by a formal hearing by the
IGRC, and informing him that, if he disagrees with the IGRC's decision, he could appeal it to the
facility superintendent and thereafter to the CORC. See Dkt. No. 50-10 at 9. On August 7, 2012,
the IGRC issued a determination on Plaintiff's grievance. See id. at 3. Plaintiff's complaint in this
matter is dated July 28, 2012, and was received by the Court on August 6, 2012. See Dkt. No. 1.
Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to fully exhaust his administrative remedies prior to commencing
this action.
Additionally, the Court notes that, at his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he sent copies
of his grievance to the CORC on or about August 7, 2012. Dkt. No. 50-18 at 32-33. Defendants,
4
however, have submitted evidence indicating that Plaintiff did not file any correspondence,
including any appeals of any grievances, with either Defendant Heath or the CORC. See Dkt. No.
50-9 at 3; Dkt. No. 50-13 at 3; Dkt. No. 50-15 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 16 at 1-2. Even assuming Plaintiff
did sent his grievance to the CORC, he still would have failed to exhaust his remedies because he
was first required to appeal the decision of the IGRC to the Superintendent of Greene C.F. See
Ruggiero v. Cnty. of Orange, 467 F.3d 170, 175-76 (2d Cir. 2006) ("The PLRA requires 'proper
exhaustion,' which 'means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that
the agency addresses the issues on the merits)'") (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the Court
finds that the evidence clearly establishes that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies.
Finally, the Court also finds that Magistrate Judge Peebles correctly determined that
Plaintiff failed to set forth any evidence establishing a basis for excusing the exhaustion
requirement. See Dkt. No. 54 at 14.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' February 10, 2015 Report and Recommendation
is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 50) is GRANTED
and Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close
this case; and the Court further
5
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2015
Albany, New York
6
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?