Green v. Venettozzi et al

Filing 67

ORDER adopting 63 Report and Recommendations and denying the 55 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 11/23/16 (served on plaintiff via regular mail). (rjb, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________________
SHAWN GREEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:14-CV-1215 (BKS/CFH)

D. VENETTOZZI, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________
Appearances:
Shawn Green
97-A-0801
Clinton Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2000
Dannemora, NY 12929
Plaintiff, pro se
Denise P. Buckley, Esq.
Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman
Office of New York State Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Attorney for Defendants
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Shawn Green, a New York State inmate, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against numerous defendants alleging violations of his rights under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dkt. Nos. 1, 16. On June 28,
2016, Defendants filed a motion for an order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (IFP) status
and conditionally dismissing Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Dkt. No. 55. Plaintiff responded to the motion on September 9, 2016, and

Defendants filed a reply on September 13, 2016. Dkt. Nos. 60, 61. This matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel who, on October 31, 2016, issued a ReportRecommendation and Order recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status be denied without prejudice. Dkt. No. 63.
Magistrate Judge Hummel advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they could lodge
written objections to the Report, and that the failure to object to the Report within fourteen days
would preclude appellate review. Dkt. No. 63, p. 8. No objections to the ReportRecommendation have been filed.
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. 63) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss and to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma
pauperis status (Dkt. No. 55) is DENIED without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with
the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 23, 2016

2