Roach v. Deputy Okun et al

Filing 134

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that 127 Report and Recommendation is adopted. ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 38 , is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: 1. The motion is GRANTED with respec t to Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Defendant Okun, and Defendant Okun is hereby DISMISSED as a defendant in this action; 2. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Stratton based upon lack of no tice for placement in special housing; and 3. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's claim of denial of due process in connection with his disciplinary hearing. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 8/23/17.{order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
MATTHEW J. ROACH,
Plaintiff,
vs.

9:13-CV-866
(TJM/DJS)

DEPUTY OKUN, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________
Thomas J. McAvoy,
Sr. U.S. District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
This pro se civil action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges Defendants
violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights while he was incarcerated. The matter was referred
to the Hon. Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, for a ReportRecommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).
The Report-Recommendation, dated June 6, 2017, recom mends that Defendant
Deputy Okun be granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim and
Defendant Stratton be granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim alleging lack of
notice before he was placed in special housing. The Magistrate Judge recommended,
however, that Defendants’ motion be denied with respect to Plaintiff’s due process claim
raised in connection with his disciplinary hearing.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. See dkt. # 133. W hen

1

objections to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a
“de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a
review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the
Plaintiff’s objections, the Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Stewart for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Stewart, dkt. # 133, are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt.
# 127, is hereby ADOPTED, and:
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 38, is hereby GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part, as follows:
1. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim
against Defendant Okun, and Defendant Okun is hereby DISMISSED as a
defendant in this action;
2. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s claim against
Defendant Stratton based upon lack of notice for placement in special
housing; and
3. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s claim of denial of due
process in connection with his disciplinary hearing.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 23, 2017

3