Harrington v. Vadlamudi et al

Filing 62

ORDER adopting 60 Report and Recommendations and granting the 57 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 8/30/16 (served on plaintiff via regular and certified mail). (rjb, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________________ DAVID HARRINGTON, Plaintiff, v. 9:13-CV-0795 (BKS/DJS) DR. VADLAMUDI, Doctor, Marcy Correctional Facility, et al., Defendants. ________________________________________________ Appearances: David Harrington Fort Edward, NY 12828 Plaintiff, pro se Keith J. Starlin, Esq. Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman Office of New York State Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Attorney for Defendants Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff David Harrington, a former New York State inmate, commenced this action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, arising out of his incarceration at Marcy Correctional Facility. Dkt. No. 45. On December 18, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, seeking dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice. Dkt. No. 57. Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants’ motion. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart who, on August 9, 2016, issued a Report-Recommendation and Order recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and that this action be dismissed. Dkt. No. 60. Magistrate Judge Stewart advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Id., p. 23. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed. As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. For these reasons, it is ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 60) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 57) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 45) is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30, 2016 2

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?