Cintron v. Weissman et al

Filing 116

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 114 , is hereby ADOPTED; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 93 , is hereby DENIED; Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 98 , is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 7/28/16. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
DAVID CINTRON,
Plaintiff,
vs.

9:14-CV-116
(TJM/DEP)

NURSE DENISE REOME, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
Thomas J. McAvoy,
United States District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
This action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that Defendants violated
Plaintiff’s rights by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants failed to provide him with medical treatment after he cut his
tongue on a piece of glass contained in a piece of bread in his prison meal. The action
was referred to the Hon. David E. Peebles, 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 29, 2016, recom mends that Defendants’
motion for summary judgment be granted and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be
denied. See dkt. # 114. Magistrate Judge Peebles also recommends that Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint be dismissed.

1

No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been raised. After examining
the record, this Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to
attack for plain error or manifest injustice. Accordingly, this Court adopts the ReportRecommendation and Order for the reasons stated therein.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. #
114, is hereby ADOPTED, and:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 93, is hereby DENIED;

2.

Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 98, is hereby
GRANTED; and

3.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:July 28, 2016

2