Williams v. Auburn CF et al
Filing
30
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Court ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation and Order [dkt. # 29 ] for the reasons stated therein. Defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. # 27 ] on Plaintiff's amended complaint [dkt. # 10] is GRAN TED and Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 12/21/15. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
KAYLIN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 9:14-CV-437
(TJM/CFH)
PAUL W. CHAPPIUS, Superintendent,
Elmira Correctional Facility, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________
THOMAS J. McAVOY,
Senior United States District Judge
DECISION & ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was referred to the Hon.
Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). No objections to Magistrate Judge
Hummel’s Report-Recommendation and Order [dkt. # 29] have been filed, and the time to
do so has expired.
II.
DISCUSSION
After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report-
Recommendation and Order is not subject to attack f or plain error or manifest injustice.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation and Order [dkt. # 29]
1
for the reasons stated therein. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt. # 27] on
Plaintiff’s amended complaint [dkt. # 10] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s amended complaint
is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:December 21, 2015
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?