Bryant v. Doe et al
Filing
48
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 46 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 37 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/18/17. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
CHARLES J. BRYANT,
Plaintiff,
9:16-CV-0155
(GTS/DEP)
v.
JOHN MCWATERS, Badge #175, Corr. Officer,
Albany Cty. Corr. Fac.; and MICHAEL POOLE,
Sergeant, Albany Cty. Corr. Fac.,
Defendants
__________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
CHARLES J. BRYANT, 15-R-1904
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Green Haven Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 4000
Stormville, New York 12582
HON. P. DAVID SOARES
Albany County District Attorney
Counsel for Defendants
112 State Street
Albany, New York 12207
MICHAEL L. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
Assistant Albany County Attorney
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 Charles J.
Bryant (“Plaintiff”) against the two above-captioned employees of Albany County Correctional
Facility in Albany, New York (“Defendants”), are (1) Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies before
filing this action, and (2) United States Magistrate David E. Peebles’ Report-Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to exhaust his available
administrative remedies. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 46.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the ReportRecommendation, 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 ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Peebles employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation
is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is granted, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 46) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 37) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of the
Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action.
Dated: September 18, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
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
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?