Hall, III v. New York State Department of Corrections et al
Filing
34
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 32 Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and Recommendation in its entirety; granting # 23 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety. The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in good faith pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 12/17/18. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
MURRAY HALL, III,
Plaintiff,
9:17-CV-1069
(GTS/DEP)
v.
ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Comm’r.; DANIEL
MARTUSCELLO, Dep. Comm’r. for Admin. Servs.,
DOCCS, f/k/a Daniel Mortuscello; JEFF MCKOY,
Dep. Comm’r for Program Servs., DOCCS;
BRANDON SMITH, Super., Greene C.F.; and
DEACON YOUNG, Chaplain, Greene. C.F.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
MURRAY HALL, III
Plaintiff, Pro Se
93 North Fair Field Drive
Dover, Delaware 19901
HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
KYLE W. STURGESS, 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 Murray Hall,
III (“Plaintiff”) against the five above-captioned employees of the New York State Department
of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”) are (1) Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and (2) United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles’ ReportRecommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted. (Dkt. Nos. 23, 32.) None
of the parties have filed objections 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 Peebles’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Peebles 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 stated therein;2 Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is granted; and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 32) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 23) is
GRANTED; and it is further
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
The Court would add only that an alternative reason for not affording Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend his pleading before dismissing his action is that he has already been
afforded such an opportunity to amend (his operative pleading being his Amended Complaint).
See Abascal v. Hilton, 04-CV-1401, 2008 WL 268366, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2008) (Kahn, J.,
adopting, on de novo review, Report-Recommendation by Lowe, M.J.) (“[G]ranting a pro se
plaintiff an opportunity to amend is not required where the plaintiff has already been given a
chance to amend his pleading.”), aff'd, 357 F. App'x 388 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Bratton v.
Fitzpatrick, 12-CV-0204, 2012 WL 4754558, at *2 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2012) (Suddaby, J.)
(collecting cases).
2
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 13) is DISMISSED in its
entirety, and the Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action.
The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in
good faith pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Dated: December 17, 2018
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge
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?