Woodward v. Ali et al

Filing 167

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 165 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 148 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ORDERED, that all claims against Law and Baldwin are DISMISSED with prejudice. ORDERED, that the claims against Dr. Ali and Daniel F. Martuscello under RLUIPA and the Eighth Amendment are DISMISSED, on consent, and with prejudice, but that the First Amendment cla ims against them remain for trial. ORDERED, that the due process claim against Stevenson remains for trial, but that it is limited to the allegation that Stevenson prohibited Plaintiff from attending his disciplinary hearing. ORDERED, that the remaining defendants' motion for qualified immunity is DENIED at this time. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 8/31/18. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHAWN WOODWARD,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:13-CV-1304 (LEK/DJS)

DR. ALI, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August

10, 2018, by the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 165 (“Report-Recommendation”).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s

report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections
are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an
argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a
report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857,
2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301,
306–07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of
N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320,
2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (“[E]ven a pro se party’s objections to a

Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the
magistrate’s proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply
relitigating a prior argument.”). “A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” § 636(b). Otherwise, a
court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.
III.

DISCUSSION
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Thus, the Court has

reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 165) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 148) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further
ORDERED, that all claims against Law and Baldwin are DISMISSED with prejudice;
and it is further
ORDERED, that the claims against Dr. Ali and Daniel F. Martuscello under RLUIPA
and the Eighth Amendment are DISMISSED, on consent, and with prejudice, but that the First
Amendment claims against them remain for trial; and it is further

2

ORDERED, that the due process claim against Stevenson remains for trial, but that it is
limited to the allegation that Stevenson prohibited Plaintiff from attending his disciplinary
hearing; and it is further
ORDERED, that the remaining defendants’ motion for qualified immunity is DENIED
at this time; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

August 31, 2018
Albany, New York

3