Brown v. Dubois et al

Filing 58

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 56 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 37 ), insofar as it requests dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities, is GRANTED and that such claims are dismissed. ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 37 ) is DENIED in all other respects. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 40 ) is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 7/12/17. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MELVIN BROWN,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:15-CV-1515 (LEK/CFH)

S. DUBOIS, et al.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
I.

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

16, 2017, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 56 (“Report-Recommendation”). Pro se plaintiff Melvin
Brown timely filed Objections. Dkt. No. 57 (“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 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 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
Although Brown submitted a filing in response to the Report-Recommendation, he did

not include any specific objections to Judge Hummel’s findings or recommendations. The filing
merely restates Brown’s Eighth Amendment claim and provides case law in support of such
claim. Objs. at 2–5. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear
error and has found none.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 56) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 37), insofar as it
requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official
capacities, is GRANTED and that such claims are dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 37) is DENIED
in all other respects; and it is further
2

ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 40) is
DENIED; 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:

July 12, 2017
Albany, New York

3