White v. Marinelli et al

Filing 85

DECISION AND ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 84 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 75 ) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, the amended co mplaint be dismissed in its entirety as against all remaining defendants; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk close this action. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on December 17, 2021. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(sas) Modified on 12/17/2021 to link the docket entries (meb).

Case 9:17-cv-01094-LEK-ATB Document 85 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EQUARN WHITE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:17-CV-1094 (LEK/ATB)

RANDEL SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Equarn White commenced this pro se action on October 2, 2017 pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights that occurred during his
confinement at Upstate Correctional Facility. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). On June 5, 2019
Plaintiff amended his complaint. Dkt. No. 44. After initial review of this amended complaint, the
Court allowed eight of Plaintiff’s claims to continue including claims asserting Eighth
Amendment conditions-of-confinement, First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment
excessive force, and Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference asserted against various
defendants. See Dkt. No. 55 at 22–24.
On April 5, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 75.
Plaintiff requested, and the Court granted, additional time to respond to Defendants’ motion on
June 7, 2021. Dkt. Nos. 81, 82. However, Plaintiff never filed a response. See Docket.
Now before the Court is a Report-Recommendation regarding the motion for summary
judgment filed by the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, recommending that Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment be granted. Dkt. No. 84 (“Report-Recommendation”). For the reasons that
follow, the Court approves and adopts the Report-Recommendation.

Case 9:17-cv-01094-LEK-ATB Document 85 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 3

II.

BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations
Petitioner’s factual allegations are detailed in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity

with which is assumed. See generally R. & R.
B. The Report-Recommendation
After a very thorough review of the facts and claims asserted by Plaintiff, as well as the
uncontradicted record evidence presented by Defendants, Judge Baxter found no material facts at
issue and that summary judgment is appropriate as to each of Plaintiff’s claims. See id. at 53.
III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s

report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If objections are timely
filed, a court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
However, if no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a
mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that
aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013
WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306–07
(N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange,
748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320, 2011 WL
3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (“[E]ven a pro se party’s objections to a Report and
Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s
proposal . . . .”). “A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” § 636(b).
2

Case 9:17-cv-01094-LEK-ATB Document 85 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 3

IV.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report-Recommendation. See Docket.

Consequently, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error and finds none.
Therefore, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
V.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 84) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 75) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, the amended complaint be dismissed in its entirety as against all remaining
defendants; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk close this action; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

December 17, 2021
Albany, New York

3