Shaw v. Prindle et al

Filing 56

ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel's July 10, 2015 Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. ORDERED that Plaint iff's appeal from Magistrate Judge Hummel's April 3, 2015 Order denying Plaintiff's request for a copy of Defendant's personnel file, see Dkt. No. 48 , is DENIED as moot. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 8/10/15. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________________
MICHAEL DAVID SHAW,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:12-CV-1281
(FJS/CFH)

S. PRINDLE, Correction Officer,
Defendant.
_________________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

MICHAEL DAVID SHAW
05-A-0177
Fishkill Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 1245
Beacon, New York 12508
Plaintiff pro se
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendant

RACHEL M. KISH, AAG

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant Prindle
violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment by sexually assaulting him during a
pat frisk. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff asserted that he suffered pain in his left foot, extreme
emotional distress, sleeplessness, mental anguish, insecurity, anxiety, fear and humiliation. See
Amended Complaint at 13.
On May 4, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposed that

motion. In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated July 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hummel
recommended that this Court grant Defendant's motion. See Dkt. No. 54 at 14. Plaintiff filed
objections to that recommendation. See Dkt. No. 55.
After reviewing a magistrate judge's recommendations, the district court may accept, reject
or modify those recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews de novo those
portions of the magistrate judge's recommendations to which a party objects. See Pizzaro v.
Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). "'"If, however, the party makes only conclusory or
general objections, . . . the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error."'"
Salmini v. Astrue, No. 3:06-CV-458, 2009 WL 179741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (quoting
[Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301] at 306 [(N.D.N.Y. 2008)] (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen,
517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007))). Finally, even if the parties file no objections, the court
must ensure that the face of the record contains no clear error. See Wilds v. United Parcel Serv.,
Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quotation omitted).
In this case, Plaintiff objects, generally, to some of the cases on which Magistrate Judge
Hummel relied in reaching his decision and to Magistrate Judge Hummel's interpretation of the
holdings of those and other cases. Despite the general nature of Plaintiff's arguments, the Court has
reviewed the entirety of Magistrate Judge Hummel's decision de novo. Having completed its review
of the entire file in this matter and the applicable law, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's July 10, 2015 Report-Recommendation and
Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and the Court
further
-2-

ORDERS that Plaintiff's appeal from Magistrate Judge Hummel's April 3, 2015 Order
denying Plaintiff's request for a copy of Defendant's personnel file, see Dkt. No. 48, is DENIED as
moot; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close
this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2015
Syracuse, New York

-3-