Williams v. Casimo

Filing 138

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 129 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 106 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Pl aintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 69) is DISMISSED in its entirety. ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment for Defendant and close this action. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/6/18. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
RODNEY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
9:15-CV-0988
(GTS/DJS)

v.
CASIMO FERRARI, Physician,
Bare Hill Corr. Fac., f/k/a Farrari Casimo,
Defendant.
__________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

RODNEY WILLIAMS, 10-A-3938
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Livingston Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 91
Sonyea, New York 14556
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
Counsel for Defendants
615 Erie Boulevard West, Suite 102
Syracuse, New York 13204

DENNIS P. BUCKLEY, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Rodney
Williams (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned employee of the New York State Department
of Corrections (“Defendant”), are (1) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, and (2) United States Magistrate
Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment be granted and that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos.
106, 129.) None of the parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation, and the
deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge
Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation
is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment is granted, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 129) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 106) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 69) is DISMISSED in its
entirety; and it is further

1

When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment for Defendant and close this
action.
Dated: March 6, 2018
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

3