Dubuque v. Woodlock et al

Filing 27

DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 22 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/24/15. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
MARK J. DUBUQUE,
Plaintiff,
9:13-CV-1032
(GTS/TWD)

v.
JEFF NOWICKI, Chief of Mental Health
Treatment Servs. at CNYPC; and
MIA TOWNSEND, Primary Therapist,
Ward 405 Licensed Master Soc. Worker,
Defendants.
__________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

MARK J. DUBUQUE, 240675
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Central New York Psychiatric Center
P.O. Box 300
Ward 405
Marcy, New York 13403
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

CATHY Y. SHEEHAN, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General

GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Mark J. Dubuque
(“Plaintiff”) against the two above-captioned Central New York Psychiatric Center employees
(“Defendants”), are Defendants’ motion for summary Judgment and United States Magistrate
Judge Therese Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion
be granted. (Dkt. Nos. 22, 26.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-

Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety;
Defendants’ motion is granted; and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
Generally, in her Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Dancks made the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law: (1) Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against
Defendants in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed by the Court
sua sponte because of Eleventh Amendment immunity; (2) Plaintiff’s privacy claim against
Defendant Townsend under the Fourteenth Amendment should be dismissed because Plaintiff
failed to establish that he had a constitutionally protected right to privacy regarding the
disclosure by the government of a domestic violence claim by his ex-wife, nor has Plaintiff
established that any such right to privacy outweighs the government’s interest in such
disclosure;1 and (3) Plaintiff’s claim of supervisory liability against Defendant Nowicki under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed because of Plaintiff’s failure to establish any underlying
constitutional violations by Defendant Townsend. (Dkt. No. 26, at Part IV.) Familiarity with the
particular grounds supporting these findings and conclusions is assumed in this Decision and
Order, which is intended primarily for the review of the parties.
When, as here, no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

1

The Court notes that Magistrate Judge Dancks concludes that “the government’s
interest in providing treatment to Plaintiff and protecting the public far outweighs any interest
Plaintiff has in keeping his history of domestic violence private,” particularly given that he is
being confined under the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (“SOMTA”), and is
subject to a treatment plan that includes periodic mental and physical evaluations pursuant to
N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 29.13. (Dkt. No. 26, at Part IV.B.)
2

recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1.
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Based upon a careful review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error in the
Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately
recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court accepts and
adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. (Dkt. No. 26.) To those
reasons, the Court would add only one point.
Although the Local Rule 56.2 Notice provided by Defendants to Plaintiff was outdated
(Dkt. No. 22, Attach. 1), the Court sua sponte provided Plaintiff with the current Local Rule 56.2
Notice (Dkt. No. 25, at 2), which more clearly advised Plaintiff of the consequences of failing to
respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Based on this notice, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff’s failure was willful.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 22) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety.
Dated: June 24, 2015
Syracuse, New York

3