Wright v. Doe et al

Filing 37

AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER: Based upon a de novo review of the 33 Report-Recommendation, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that: 1. Defendant James Thomsen's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30 ) is GRANTED; 2. All claims against defendant James Thomsen are DISMISSED and he is terminated from this action. The causes of action against the remaining defendants will continue. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/21/16. (served on plaintiff by regular and certified mail)(alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------SHAMEL WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
-v-

9:14-CV-1041
(DNH/TWD)

ROWLAND POTTER, MICHAEL BARKMAN,
JAMES THOMSEN, C.O. JOHN DOE #1,
C.O. JOHN DOE #2 AND SGT. JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

SHAMEL WRIGHT
Plaintiff, Pro Se
346 Furman Street, 1st Floor
Schenectady, NY 12304
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Attorneys for Defendant James Thomsen
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

RYAN E. MANLEY, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
AMENDED DECISION and ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Shamel Wright brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On June 28, 2016, the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge,
advised by Report-Recommendation that defendant James Thomsen’s motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 be granted, and that he be dismissed
from this action. See ECF No. 33. Plaintiff has not filed timely objections.

Based upon a de novo review of the Report-Recommendation, the ReportRecommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that:
1. Defendant James Thomsen’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30) is
GRANTED;
2. All claims against defendant James Thomsen are DISMISSED and he is terminated
from this action. The causes of action against the remaining defendants will continue; and
3. The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with
the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2016
Utica, New York

-2-