Zimmerman et al v. Todd et al

Filing 77

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 76 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. No. 57 ) is DENIED; Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. No. 66 ) is GRANTED; and the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 30 ) is DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 9/28/18. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NICHOLAS ZIMMERMAN,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:15-CV-1437 (LEK/DEP)

T. TODD, Assistant Inspector General,
et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August

30, 2018, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 76 (“Report-Recommendation”).
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 objections are
timely filed, 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.” § 636(b).
However, 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 report-recommendation 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).
III.

DISCUSSION
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Accordingly, the Court has

reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none. Barnes,
2013 WL 1121353, at *1. The Court therefore adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety;
denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 57 (“Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment
Motion”); grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 66 (“Defendants’
Summary Judgment Motion”); and dismisses in its entirety Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Dkt.
No. 30 (“Amended Complaint”).
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 76) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. No. 57) is DENIED;
Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. No. 66) is GRANTED; and the Amended
Complaint (Dkt. No. 30) is DISMISSED in its entirety; and it is further
2

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

September 28, 2018
Albany, New York

3