Allah v. Karandy et al

Filing 73

ORDER: ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' May 9, 2016 Order and Report-Recommendation, see Dkt. No. 65 , is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No . 54 , is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Khan, Hilton, and Van Buren. ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 54 , is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff's Fourte enth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Hilton and Van Buren insofar as those claims relate to imposition of restraints and the jumpsuit. ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 54 , is DENIED with re gard to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Hilton and Van Buren insofar as those claims relate to Draft Directive No. 4939. ORDERS that this case is now trial ready and the Court will issue a trial order in due course. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 3/31/17.{order and consent form served via regular mail on plaintiff} (nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________________
KHALAIRE ALLAH,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:13-CV-826
(FJS/TWD)

B. HILTON, Deputy Superintendent Mental
Health, Marcy Correctional Facility; DR.
KHAN, Medical Director, Marcy Correctional
Facility; and DIANE L. VANBUREN,
Executive Assistant Commissioner, Department
of Corrections,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

KHALAIRE ALLAH
01-B-0997
Marcy Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 3600
Marcy, New York 13403
Plaintiff pro se
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendants

MELISSA A. LATINO, AAG

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
Currently before the Court are Magistrate Judge Dancks' May 9, 2016 Order and ReportRecommendation, see Dkt. No. 65, and Defendants' objections thereto, see Dkt. No. 66.
Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Defendants. He alleged, among other things, that Defendants had violated his constitutional rights
under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.1 See generally
Dkt. No. 1.
On November 27, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 54,
which Plaintiff opposed, see Dkt. No. 60. In her May 9, 2016 Order and Report-Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants'
motion for summary judgment. Specifically, she recommend that this Court grant the motion with
regard to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Khan, Hilton and Van Buren and
Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims related to imposition of restraints and the
jumpsuit against Defendants Hilton and Van Buren and deny the motion with regard to Plaintiff's
Fourteenth Amendment due process claims related to Draft Directive No. 4939 against Defendants
Hilton and Van Buren. See Dkt. No. 65 at 37. Finally, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that
this Court reject Defendants Hilton and Van Buren's qualified immunity argument at this time. See
id. at 35.
Where a party makes specific objections to portions of a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, the court conducts a de novo review of those recommendations. See Trombley v.
Oneill, No. 8:11-CV-0569, 2011 WL 5881781, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). "However, a district court will ordinarily refuse to consider
evidentiary material that could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first
instance." Id. (footnote omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, a district court may
1

In her Order and Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Dancks discussed the
allegations that form the basis for Plaintiff's claims in detail. The Court will, therefore, not
repeat those allegations herein.
-2-

decide to accept, reject, or modify those recommendations. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Dancks' Order and ReportRecommendation in light of Defendants' specific objections to her recommendations that the Court
deny their motion for summary judgment with regard to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due
process claims relating to Draft Directive No. 4939 against Defendants Hilton and Van Buren and
that the Court reject their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to those
claims. Having completed its review, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' May 9, 2016 Order and Report-Recommendation,
see Dkt. No. 65, is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 54, is GRANTED
with regard to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Khan, Hilton, and Van
Buren; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 54, is GRANTED
with regard to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Hilton and
Van Buren insofar as those claims relate to imposition of restraints and the jumpsuit; and the Court
further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 54, is DENIED
with regard to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Hilton and
Van Buren insofar as those claims relate to Draft Directive No. 4939; and the Court further
ORDERS that this case is now trial ready and the Court will issue a trial order in due

-3-

course;2 and the Court further
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 31, 2017
Syracuse, New York

2

The Court encourages the parties to consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Dancks
for the trial of this matter due to the congestion of this Court's calendar. In the event the parties
consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Dancks, they can find the consent form on the
Court's website, www.nynd.uscourts.gov under Forms/Civil/All Forms/AO-85 - Notice Consent
and Reference of Civil Action to Magistrate. Both parties must sign this document before
submitting it to the District Judge for approval. The Clerk of the Court is directed to attach a
blank consent form to this Order.
-4-