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, )

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