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)

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