McCaskill v. Bresett et al

Filing 92

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 86 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 73 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Pla intiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action. The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/24/17. (served on plaintiff by regular and certified mail)(alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
MATTHEW McCASKILL,
Plaintiff,
9:13-CV-1487
(GTS/DJS)

v.
W. BRESETT, Officer, Riverview Corr. Fac.;
GARRABRANT, Sergeant, Riverview Corr. Fac.; and
C.O. HUCHENS, Corr. Officer, Riverview Corr. Fac.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
MATTHEW McCASKILL
Plaintiff, Pro Se
P.O. Box 3040
Schenectady, NY 12303
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

CHRISTOPHER J. HUMMEL, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Matthew
McCaskill (“Plaintiff”) against the three above-captioned employees of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”) at Riverview
Correctional Facility in Ogdensburg, New York, are (1) Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and (2) United States Magistrate Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation
recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for
failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies. (Dkt. Nos. 73, 86.) Plaintiff has not

filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has expired.
(See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including
Magistrate Judge Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error
in the Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards,
accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts.1 As a result, the
Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein;
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted; and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 86) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 73) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED and the Clerk of the
Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action.
The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated: March 24, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

1

When 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
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 omitted).
2