Dizak v. Hawks et al
Filing
161
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 151 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 111 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs § 1983 excessive force claim against defendants Lavallee and Rogers. The Motion is otherwise DENIED. ORDERED, that the Clerk shall terminate Lavallee as a defendant in this action. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 2/20/18. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STUART DIZAK,
Plaintiff,
-against-
9:15-CV-1171 (LEK/TWD)
B. HAWKS, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on
January 9, 2018, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 151 (“Report-Recommendation”). Defendants
and pro se plaintiff Stuart Dizak timely filed objections. Dkt. Nos. 154 (“Defendants’
Objections”); 159 (“Plaintiff’s Objections”).
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s
report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections
are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an
argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a reportrecommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306–07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y.
2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471
(2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (“[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.”). “A [district]
judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” § 636(b). Otherwise, a court “shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” Id.
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendants object to Judge Dancks’s application of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), which governs
summary judgment motions in this District. Specifically, Defendants claim that Judge Dancks
“incorrectly extrapolated facts beyond the record provided” and improperly “excuse[d] [P]laintiff
from his failure to comply with L.R. 7.1(a)(3).” Defs.’ Objs. at 1. The Court rejects both claims,
which are not supported by the relevant caselaw or Judge Dancks’s detailed and reasoned
Report-Recommendation.
Defendants do not identify any specific facts that Judge Dancks allegedly extrapolated
incorrectly. Instead, they seem to argue that Judge Dancks’s review of the record in its entirety,
rather than the parties’ statements of material facts in isolation, constituted an abuse of
discretion. Id. at 2. The Second Circuit has clearly rejected this argument. “A district court has
broad discretion to determine whether to overlook a party’s failure to comply with the local court
rules,” and “may in its discretion opt to ‘conduct an assiduous review of the record’ even where
one of the parties has failed to file [] a [7.1] statement.” Holtz v. Rockefeller, 258 F.3d 62, 73 (2d
2
Cir. 2001) (quoting Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corrs., 214 F.3d 275, 292 (2d Cir. 2000)),
abrogated on other grounds by Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 557 U.S. 167 (2009). Here, where
Plaintiff was consistently involved in the litigation and merely failed to respond to a few
statements in Defendants’ Rule 7.1 submission, Judge Dancks appropriately exercised her
discretion in deciding to review the record in its entirety.
In addition, when deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court “must . . . assess
whether the moving party has fulfilled its burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue
of material fact and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” Vermont Teddy Bear Co.,
Inc. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added); see also
Johnson v. Lew, No. 13-CV-1072, 2017 WL 3822047, at *2 n.4 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2017)
(“[A]s in every case, the Court reviews Defendant’s record citations to determine whether they
support the facts asserted in his Rule 7.1 Statement.” (citing Vermont Teddy Bear, 373 F.3d
at 244)). Judge Dancks followed these directions admirably and reviewed the extensive record
with diligence. Absent any specific objection from Defendants regarding Judge Dancks’s factual
findings or legal conclusions, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error
and has found none.1
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 151) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
1
Plaintiff’s submission in response to the Report-Recommendation did not object to any
of Judge Dancks’s specific factual findings or legal conclusions. Rather, he continues to object to
Defendants’ factual submissions. Pl.’s Objs. at 2–3.
3
ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 111) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s § 1983
excessive force claim against defendants Lavallee and Rogers. The Motion is otherwise
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk shall terminate Lavallee as a defendant in this action; and it is
further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
February 20, 2018
Albany, New York
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?