Berman v. Durkin et al

Filing 201

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 200 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 190 ) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against defendants Dr. Ramineni and Dr. Mannava and as to the claims against the Doe Defendants, and DENIED in all other respects. ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court terminate Dr. Ramineni, Dr. Mannava, and the Doe Defend ants from this action. ORDERED, that this matter is trial ready and an exhaustion hearing conducted by the magistrate judge shall be held before trial. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/3117.{order served via regular mail and via certified mail on plaintiff} (nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BARRY BERMAN,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:13-CV-0136 (LEK/DJS)

CHARLES DURKIN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on March
10, 2017, by the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 200 (“Report-Recommendation”).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s
report-recommendation, 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-857, 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-CV-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. Docket. Thus, 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. 200) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 190) is
GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
defendants Dr. Ramineni and Dr. Mannava and as to the claims against the Doe Defendants, and
DENIED in all other respects; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court terminate Dr. Ramineni, Dr. Mannava, and the
Doe Defendants from this action; and it is further
ORDERED, that this matter is trial ready and an exhaustion hearing conducted by the
magistrate judge shall be held before trial; 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:

March 31, 2017
Albany, New York

2