Bey v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

Filing 39

ORDER: ORDERED that the Order and Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 37 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 27 ) be GRANTED. ORDERED that Bey's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11 ) is DISMISSED. ORDERED that the Clerk close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/15/16. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
JAMAL SALAAM BEY,
Plaintiff,

9:14-cv-836
(GLS/TWD)

v.
CHRISTOPHER MILLER et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
JAMAL SALAAM BEY
a/k/a Raymond Davis
Plaintiff, Pro se
Great Meadow Correctional Facility
Box 51
Comstock, New York 12821
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
HON. ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

COLLEEN D. GALLIGAN
Assistant Attorney General

Gary L. Sharpe
Senior District Judge
ORDER
The above-captioned matter comes to this court following an Order

and Report and Recommendation (R&R) by Magistrate Judge Thérèse,
duly filed on October 19, 2016. (Dkt. No. 37.) Following fourteen days
from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the file, including any and all
objections filed by the parties herein.
No objections having been filed,1 and the court having reviewed the
R&R for clear error, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Order and Report and Recommendation (Dkt.
No. 37) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
No. 27) be GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Bey’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) is
DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this order upon the
parties in accordance with the court’s Local Rules.

1

Plaintiff’s only filing submitted after the R&R was issued does not contain any
objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 38.) Even if the court were to construe that filing as an
attempt to object, it would trigger review for clear error only. See Almonte v. N.Y.S. Div. of
Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484, 2006 WL 149049, at *4-5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). As explained
above, the court has carefully reviewed the R&R for clear error even in the absence of any
objections.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 15, 2016
Albany, New York

3