Caimite v. Venettozzi et al

Filing 78

SUMMARY ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 72 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 60 ) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is now deemed trial ready and a trial scheduling order will be issued in due course. Signed by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 9/23/2020. (Copy served via regular mail)(meb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
ECSON CAIMITE,
Plaintiff,

9:17-cv-919
(GLS/CFH)

v.
A. RODRIGUEZ et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
SUMMARY ORDER
On April 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel issued a
Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R), which recommends that
defendants A. Rodriguez’s and J.A. Esgrow’s motion for summary
judgment be denied. (Dkt. No. 72.) Pending before the court are
defendants’ objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 73.)
Only specific objections warrant de novo review. See Almonte v.
N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484, 2006 WL 149049, at *3-5
(N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). Objections that are general, conclusory,
frivolous, or a mere reiteration of an argument already made to the
Magistrate Judge trigger only clear error review. See id. at *4-5.
Only two of defendants’ arguments are arguably specific objections,
for which the court has conducted de novo review. See id. at *3-4. First,

defendants contend that Judge Hummel erred in relying on Rosales v.
Bennett, 297 F. Supp. 2d 637 (W.D.N.Y. 2004), and Sweet v. Wende Corr.
Facility, 253 F. Supp. 2d 492 (W.D.N.Y. 2003), and concluding that a
plaintiff does not have to specifically raise all issues in a hearing appeal to
preserve or exhaust his claims. (Dkt. No. 73 at 4-7.) Second, defendants
argue that Judge Hummel erred in relying on Thomas v. Calero, 824 F.
Supp. 2d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), and concluding that a triable question of
fact exists with regard to whether Rodriguez was personally involved in a
constitutional violation, because a review of the record, as well as
Rodriguez’s declaration, shows that he lacked sufficient personal
involvement. (Id. at 7-9.)
Having carefully considered the R&R in light of defendants’
objections, the court sees no reason to repeat what is said in the R&R in
conducting de novo review because this court reaches the same
conclusions as those reached by Judge Hummel. (Dkt. No. 72 at 18-26.)
Defendants’ remaining arguments are “general, conclusory,
perfunctory, [and] a mere reiteration of . . . argument[s] [already] made,”
which triggers review only for clear error. See Rahman v. Fischer,
No. 9:10-cv-1496, 2014 WL 688980, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2014)
2

(collecting cases); Almonte, 2006 WL 149049, at *4 (explaining that
resubmitting the same arguments previously made “fails to comply with the
specificity requirement”).
For instance, defendants contend that Judge Hummel erred in
concluding that triable issues of fact exist as to whether Esgrow violated
Caimite’s constitutional due process rights because, according to
defendants, Judge Hummel “ignore[d] the fact that it is [d]efendants’
position that [Caimite] never called J. Webster/the tester as a witness,” and
“ignore[d] th[e] fact that, . . . [when] asked what witnesses he wanted to
call, [Caimite] requested several witnesses, but made no mention of
J. Webster or the person who performed the drug testing.” (Dkt. No. 73
at 9-10.) However, as the R&R illustrates, the opposite is actually true.
Indeed, Judge Hummel specifically addressed, and, after a thorough
analysis, rejected, these same arguments. (Dkt. No. 72 at 12-18.)
Lastly, defendants maintain that Judge Hummel erred in concluding
that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity, and that the court incorrectly concluded this by its
“mistaken analysis of [Caimite’s] due process claims.” (Dkt. No. 73 at 10.)
This gripe is entirely conclusory and reiterates a previous argument made
3

by defendants in their motion for summary judgment, and, thus, triggers
only clear error review. (Dkt. No. 60, Attach. 10 at 10-11); see Almonte,
2006 WL 149049, at *4-5.
After reviewing the R&R, there is no apparent, let alone clear, error in
Judge Hummel’s analysis, which squarely addresses defendants’
arguments and provides multiple, appropriate reasons for denying
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 72 at 12-18, 22-23).
Accordingly, the R&R, is adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 72)
is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
No. 60) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that this case is now deemed trial ready and a trial
scheduling order will be issued in due course; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Summary Order to
the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

September 23, 2020
Albany, New York

5