Lang v. New York State et al

Filing 26

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 22 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/29/17. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ MICHAEL LANG, Plaintiff, 9:17-CV-0056 (GTS/ATB) v. RIEL, Sergeant, Bare Hill C.F.; S. NEWCOMBE, Corr. Officer, Bare Hill C.F.; JOHN DOE, Corr. Officer, Bare Hill C.F.; JOHN ROE, Corr. Officer, Bare Hill C.F.; and MR. JUNEAU, Corr. Officer, Bare Hill C.F., Defendants. __________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL LANG, 14-A-4337 Plaintiff, Pro Se Washington Correctional Facility Box 180, 72 Lock 11 Lane Comstock, New York 12821 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 RYAN W. HICKEY, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this prisoner civil rights action filed pro se by Michael Lang (“Plaintiff”) against the five above-captioned employees of Bare Hill Correctional Facility in Malone, New York (“Defendants”), are (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos. 22, 24.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection 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 Baxter’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Baxter 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, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 22) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: August 29, 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?