Scott et al v. Uhler et al

Filing 65

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel, dkt. # 63 , is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff's objections, dkt. # 64, are hereby OVERRULED. ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss, dkt. # 60 , is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: 1. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment claims, and those claims are hereby DISMISSED; 2. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, and those claims are hereby DISMISSED; and 3. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 6/25/18. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
JAMES N. SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
vs.

9:16-CV-403
(TJM/CFH)

D. UHLER, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________
Thomas J. McAvoy,
Sr. U.S. District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
The Court referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, which alleges violations of Plaintiff’s
First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States
Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Rule 72.3(c).
The April 2, 2018, Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 63, recommends that the
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be granted in part and
denied in part. Magistrate Judge Hummel recommends that the motion be granted with
respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims,
and denied with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation. When objections to
a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are filed, the Court makes a “de novo

1

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a
review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and considered the issues raised in the
Plaintiff’s objections, the Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Hummel for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
Accordingly,
The Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel, dkt. # 63, is hereby
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s objections, dkt. # 64, are hereby OVERRULED.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dkt. # 60, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part,
as follows:
1.

The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims,
and those claims are hereby DISMISSED;

2.

The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment
due process claims, and those claims are hereby DISMISSED; and

3.

The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment

equal protection claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:June 25, 2018

2