White v. Tatro

Filing 40

ORDER denying 35 and 37 Letter Requests for injunctive relief, adopting 38 Report and Recommendations and granting 19 motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and conditionally dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without further order unless he pays the entire filing fee of $350.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. ( Notice of Compliance Deadline 2/13/2017, Case Review Deadline 3/13/2017). Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 1/12/17. (Copy served on plaintiff via regular mail)(rjb, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
JOHN H. WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
9:15-CV-1489 (BKS/ATB)
JOHN TATRO, NYS DOCCS Lieutenant,
Defendant.
________________________________________________
Appearances:
John H. White
08-A-3366
Southport Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2000
Pine City, NY 14871
Plaintiff, pro se
Colleen D. Galligan, AAG
Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman
Office of New York State Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Attorney for Defendant
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, U. S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff pro se John H. White brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that
Defendant John Tatro violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights during a
disciplinary hearing presided over by Defendant. Dkt. No. 1. On May 5, 2016, Defendant filed

1

a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and to
conditionally dismiss the complaint. Dkt. No. 19. After being given three extensions of time,
Plaintiff failed to file a response to the motion. Plaintiff did however, file what has been
construed by the Court as a motion for injunctive relief, related to his trouble getting “legal
supplies,” and a later submission in support of that motion. Dkt. No. 35, 37. Defendant filed a
letter opposing Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 36.
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter who, on
November 28, 2016, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s motion
be granted and that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. Dkt. No. 38. On December
16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter directed to Magistrate Judge Baxter complaining about his access
to supplies. Dkt. No. 39. Plaintiff did not file any other response to the ReportRecommendation. 1
This Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v.
Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Findings and
recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear
error. Id. Since Plaintiff has not objected to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s recommendation that
Defendant’s motion be granted, the Court has reviewed that recommendation for clear error. The
Court has considered the letter Plaintiff filed on December 16, 2016, as an objection to the
1

Although the letter is dated November 9, 2016, and appears to be sworn to on November 15,
2016, before the November 28th Report-Recommendation, the letter is postmarked on December
14, 2016. Dkt. No. 39. Since Plaintiff did not file any other response to the ReportRecommendation, the Court has considered his letter as an objection to the ReportRecommendation.
2

recommendation that Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction be denied, and has reviewed that
recommendation de novo. The Court rejects the arguments in Plaintiff’s letter for the reasons set
forth in the Report-Recommendation. Dkt. No. 38, p. 8. Having reviewed the ReportRecommendation regarding Defendant’s motion for clear error and the Report-Recommendation
regarding Plaintiff’s motion de novo, the Court finds no error, and adopts the ReportRecommendation in its entirety for the reasons stated therein.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 38) is
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and
conditionally dismiss the complaint (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case be DISMISSED without further order unless he pays
the entire filing fee of $350.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 35, 37) is DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision
and Order in accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 12, 2017

3