DeJean v. Roth et al

Filing 112

ORDER adopting 109 Report and Recommendations; granting 94 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's complaint is Dismissed. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 10/24/16 (served on plaintiff via regular and certified mail). (rjb, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________________
MARC DEJEAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:14-CV-0445 (BKS/ATB)

MALCOLM ROTH, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________
Appearances:
Marc DeJean
Roosevelt, NY
Plaintiff, pro se
Maria E. Lisi-Murray, Esq.
Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman
Office of New York State Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 14202
Attorney for Defendants
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Marc DeJean, a former New York State inmate, commenced this civil rights
action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of his incarceration at Greene
Correctional Facility. Dkt. Nos. 1, 51. In his most recent complaint, the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants denied him constitutionally adequate medical care in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Dkt. No. 51. On March 11, 2016, Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Dkt. No. 94. Plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to the motion on April 20, 2016. Dkt. No. 104.

This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter who, on
July 26, 2016, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment be granted and that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Dkt. No. 109.
Magistrate Judge Baxter advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen
days within which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to object to the
report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Dkt. No. 109, p. 26. A copy of the
Report-Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff via certified mail and regular mail on July 26,
2016, and no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed. Dkt. No. 109. On
September 6, 2016, the certified mailing was returned to the Court with a notice that it had been
“unclaimed.” Dkt. No. 111.
As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing
objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See
Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear
error and found none, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
For these reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 109) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 94) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 51) is DISMISSED in its entirety;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and it is further

2

ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with
the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2016

3