Bennett v. Fletcher et al
Filing
76
DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 74 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendant McGrath's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 65 ) is GRANTED. Those of Plaintiff's claims in his Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 26 ) that are asserted against Defendant McGrath are DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE Robert J. McGrath as a Defendant in this action. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/21/2020. (Copy served upon Plaintiff via regular mail). (sal )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
DELVILLE BENNETT,
Plaintiff,
9:17-CV-0849
(GTS/CFH)
v.
THOMAS A. JIGUERE, Officer, Franklin Corr. Fac.; and
ROBERT J. McGRATH, Officer, Franklin Corr. Fac.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
DELVILLE BENNETT
Plaintiff, Pro Se
c/o Bobo Bergen House
1173 Bergen Street
Brooklyn, New York 11213
HON. LETITIA A. JAMES
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendants
26 Liberty Street
New York, New York 10005
ERIK BOULE PISONNAULT, 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 Delville
Bennett (“Plaintiff”) against Thomas A. Jiguere (“Defendant Jiguere”) and Robert J. McGrath
(“Defendant McGrath”), are (1) Defendant McGrath’s motion for summary judgment, and (2)
United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation recommending
that Defendant McGrath's motion be granted in its entirety and that Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant McGrath be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos. 65, 74.) None of the parties have filed an
objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See
generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including
Magistrate Judge Hummel’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error
in the Report-Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Hummel 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,
Defendant McGrath’s motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety, and Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant McGrath are dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 74) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant McGrath’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 65) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that those of Plaintiff’s claims in his Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No.
26) that are asserted against Defendant McGrath are DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk
of the Court shall TERMINATE Robert J. McGrath as a Defendant in this action.
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
Dated: February 21, 2020
Syracuse, New York
3
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?