Sanchezmartino v. Demmon et al

Filing 19

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 11 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Plaintiff 's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/22/17. (served on plaintiff at his address on record by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
RAFAEL SANCHEZ MARTINO,
Plaintiff,
9:16-CV-0139
(GTS/DEP)

v.
CRAIG DEMMON, Sergeant, Bare Hill Corr. Fac.;
DAVID HUGHES, Corr. Officer, Bare Hill Corr. Fac.;
GARY LaBARGE, Corr. Officer, Bare Hill Corr. Fac.;
SCOTT HOUGH, Corr. Officer, Bare Hill Corr. Fac.;
and TERRENCE WHITE, Lieutenant and Sr. Policy
Maker, Bare Hill Corr. Fac.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

RAFAEL SANCHEZMARTINO, 12-A-4609
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Bare Hill Correctional Facility
Caller Box 20
Malone, New York 12953
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendants
615 Erie Boulevard West, Suite 102
Syracuse, New York 13204

TIMOTHY P. MULVEY, 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 Rafael
Sanchez Martino (“Plaintiff”) against the five above-captioned employees of the New York State
Department of Corrections (“Defendants”) of Bare Hill Correctional Facility in Malone, New
York are (1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s

Complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and (2) United States Magistrate Judge
David E. Peebles’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted
and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 17.) None of the parties have filed
objections to the Report-Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See
generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including
Magistrate Judge Peebles’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error
in the Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Peebles employed the proper standards,
accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts.1 As a result, the
Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein;
Defendants’ motion is granted; and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 11) is
GRANTED; 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 Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety and the
Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action.
Dated: March 22, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

3