Mohamed v. Powers et al

Filing 41

DECISION AND ORDER: The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Dancks's Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. # 35 ) in its entirety. Defendant D. Phelix's motion for summary judgement, dkt. # 32 , is GRANTED, and the Second Amended Complaint, dkt. #18, is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court may enter final judgment and close the file in this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/28/17. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
HASSAN MOHAMED,
Plaintiff,
-v-

9:14-cv-01389

D. PHELIX,
Defendant
_________________________________________
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 to the Hon.

Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and
Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). In her June 13,
2017 Order and Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 35, Magistrate Judge Dancks
recommends that defendant D. Phelix's motion for summary judgment be granted. Id. pp.
33. Plaintiff Hassan Mohamed filed objections to the Order and Report-Recommendation.
See Obj., dkt. # 38.
II.

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

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
1

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.). “[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a
Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in
the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by
simply relitigating a prior argument.” Machicote v. Ercole, 2011 WL 3809920, at * 2
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2011)(citations and interior quotation marks omitted); DiPilato v.
7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp.2d 333, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)(same).
General or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same
arguments presented to the magistrate judge, are reviewed for clear error. Farid v. Bouey,
554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 n. 2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see Frankel v. N.Y.C., 2009 WL 465645 at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2009). 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 Plaintiff’s objections and having completed a de novo review of

the issues raised by the objections, the Court has determined to adopt Magistrate Judge
Dancks’s recommendations for the reasons stated in her thorough report.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Dancks’s Order and

Report-Recommendation (Dkt. # 35) in its entirety. Defendant D. Phelix's motion for

2

summary judgement, dkt. #32, is GRANTED, and the Second Amended Complaint, dkt. #
18, is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court may enter final judgment and close the file in
this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:September 28, 2017

3