Brandon v. Schroyer et al

Filing 112

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 111 , are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 99 , is hereby ADOPTED. ORDERED, that defendant Schroye r's motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 75 , is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims against Plaintiff and GRANTED in all other respects. ORDERED, that defendant Sch royer's second motion for summary judgment is hereby accepted as filed. The Clerk of Court shall refer the motion to Magistrate Judge Peebles for a Report and Recommendation. ORDERED, that the motion of summary judgment of Defendants Bedard, Blaise, Clancy, Laurin, Kinter, Perry, Web and Wingler, dkt. # 77 , is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim against Defendants Blaise and Clancy and GRANTED in all other respects. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 4/25/16. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
CHAMMA K. BRANDON,
Plaintiff,
vs.

9:13-CV-939
(TJM/DEP)

DR. GLEN SCHROYER, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
Thomas J. McAvoy,
United States District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
This action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 19 86, as well as the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc, alleges that Defendants violated the Plaintiff’s rights by denying him access to
food appropriate to his religion and preventing him participating in religious ceremonies
during his incarceration, and by failing to protect him from an assault by a fellow inmate.
The action was referred to the Hon. David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, for
a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).
The Report-Recommendation, dated February 26, 2016, recommends that
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part, and that
Defendant Glen Schroyer be permitted to file a supplemental motion for summary

1

judgment to address Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation. See dkt. # 99. Defendant Schroyer
subsequently filed such a motion. See dkt. # 100.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. When 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, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Peebles for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections to the Report-Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 111, are hereby OVERRULED. The ReportRecommendation, dkt. # 99, is hereby ADOPTED, and:
1.

Defendant Schroyer’s motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 75, is hereby
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is denied with respect to
Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Plaintiff and GRANTED in all other
respects;

2.

Defendant Schroyer’s second motion for summary judgment is hereby
accepted as filed. The Clerk of Court shall refer the motion to Magistrate

2

Judge Peebles for a Report and Recommendation; and
3.

The motion of summary judgment of Defendants Bedard, Blaise, Clancy,
Laurin, Kinter, Perry, Web and Wingler, dkt. # 77, is hereby GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s
failure-to-protect claim against Defendants Blaise and Clancy and
GRANTED in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:April 25, 2016

3