Woods v. Miller et al

Filing 33

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that 31 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety. ORDERED that 26 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 3/9/16. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WESLEY WOODS,
Plaintiff,
-v-

Civ. No. 9:14-CV-0996
(TJM/DJS)

SUPERINTENDENT MILLER, Great Meadow
Correctional Facility; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
FULLER, Great Meadow Correctional Facility;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WARRINGTON,
Great Meadow Correctional Facility,

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 by this Court

to the Hon. Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and
Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).
In his Report-Recommendation and Order, Magistrate Judge Stewart
recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 26) be denied. See Rep.-Rec. &
Ord., Dkt. # 31. Defendants filed objections to Magistrate Judge Stewart’s
recommendations. See Dkt. # 32.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are lodged,
1

the district court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.
1997) (The Court must make a de novo determination to the extent that a party makes
specific objections to a magistrate’s findings.). After reviewing the report and
recommendation, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b).
III.

DISCUSSION
Having considered Defendants’ objections and having completed a de novo review

of the issues raised by the objections, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge
Stewart’s recommendations for the reasons stated in his thorough report.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge

Stewart’s Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. # 31) in its entirety. Accordingly,
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 26) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2016

2