Chaney v. Trachtenberg et al

Filing 115

DECISION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 109 ) in its entirety. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 99 ) is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/7/18. {order served via regular mail and via certified mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
NAKIA CHANEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:15-CV-653
(TJM/ATB)

GREGORY M. VENA, et al.,
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 to the Hon.

Andrew T. Baxter, 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-Recom mendation
(Dkt. No. 109), Magistrate Judge Baxter recommends that Defendants' motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 99) be denied. Defendants file objections to this
recommendation. Dkt. No. 112. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ objections. Dkt. No. 113.
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
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.
1

1997) (The Court must make a de novo determination to the extent that a party makes
specific objections to a magistrate’s findings.).
III.

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

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

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Baxter’s

Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 109) in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. No. 99) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:September 7, 2018

2