Chaney v. Trachtenberg et al

Filing 81

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52 ) in its entirety. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed on behalf of defendants Vena and Bell ( Dkt. No. 41 ), is DENIED. Further, plaintiff is given another thirty (30) days to serve defendant Bell, and defense counsel is directed to either (1) provide to plaintiff within five (5) business days of this Decision and Order defendant Bell' ;s current or last-known address so that the Marshal may serve the defendant, or (2) indicate to plaintiff within five (5) business days of this Decision and Order that counsel will accept service on defendant Bell's behalf. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/20/17. {order served via regular 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. 52), Magistrate Judge Baxter recommends that Defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleadings, filed on behalf of defendants Vena and Bell (Dkt. No. 41), be denied,
that plaintiff be given another thirty (30) days to serve defendant Bell, and that defense
counsel be directed to either provide defendant Bell’s current or last-known address so
that the Marshal may serve the defendant or be prepared to accept service on his behalf.
Defendants filed objections to the recommendations. Dkt. No. 54.
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.).
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. 52) in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for judgment on
the pleadings, filed on behalf of defendants Vena and Bell (Dkt. No. 41), is DENIED.
Further, plaintiff is given another thirty (30) days to serve defendant Bell, and defense
counsel is directed to either (1) provide to plaintiff within five (5) business days of this
Decision and Order defendant Bell’s current or last-known address so that the Marshal
may serve the defendant, or (2) indicate to plaintiff within five (5) business days of this
Decision and Order that counsel will accept service on defendant Bell’s behalf.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:September 20, 2017

2