Allah v. Murphy et al

Filing 65

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 63 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 47 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/17/16. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
KHALAIRE ALLAH,
Plaintiff,
9:14-CV-438
(GTS/TWD)

v.
SGT. MURPHY, Great Meadow Corr. Facility;
J. FULLER, Corr. Officer, Great Meadow Corr.
Facility; T. TYNON, ADSP, Great Meadow Corr.
Facility; GOODMAN, Corr. Captain, Great Meadow
Corr. Facility; RACETTE, Superintendent, Great
Meadow Corr. Facility; and J. GLEASON, BHU
Chief, Great Meadow Corr. Facility,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

KHALAIRE ALLAH, 01-B-0997
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Marcy Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 3600
Marcy, New York 13403
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendants
615 Erie Boulevard West, Suite 102
Syracuse, New York 13204

TIMOTHY B. MULVEY, 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 Khalaire
Allah (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”) at Great Meadow Correctional Facility
in Comstock, New York are Defendants' motion for summary judgment and United States
Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that

Defendants' motion be granted. (Dkt. Nos. 47, 63.) None of the parties have filed objections to
the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket
Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation
is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants’ motion is
granted, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 63) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 47) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety, and
the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action.
Dated: August 17, 2016
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