Maldonado v. Mandalaywala et al

Filing 59

ORDER adopting 58 Report and Recommendations and granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Defendants Mandalaywala and the Superintendent of Great Meado w, and they are DISMISSED from this action; Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice as to D. Bennett, and an exhaustion hearing will be scheduled on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against D. Bennett. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 3/10/2020. (Copy served on plaintiff via regular mail)(rjb, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHAIN MALDONADO,
Plaintiff,

9:17-cv-1303 (BKS/TWD)

v.
VIJAYKUMAR S. MANDALAYWALA, et al.,
Defendants.
Appearances:
Plaintiff, pro se:
Shain Maldonado
15-B-2138
Wende Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 1187
Alden, NY 14004
For Defendants:
Letitia James
Attorney General of the State of New York
Keith J. Starlin
Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Shain Maldonado, a New York State inmate, commenced this civil rights action
asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of his incarceration. (Dkt. No. 15). On July
11, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 46). The motion was fully
briefed, with a response filed by Plaintiff and a reply filed by Defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 53, 54).
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks who, on
February 12, 2020, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment be granted as to Dr. Vijaykumar Mandalaywala and the Superintendent of
Great Meadow and denied, without prejudice, as to D. Bennett. (Dkt. No. 58). With respect to D.
Bennett, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended denying the motion for summary judgment
based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Plaintiff raised a material issue of
fact as to the availability of administrative remedies under Williams v. Priatno, 829 F.3d 118 (2d
Cir. 2015). Magistrate Judge Dancks advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they
had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to
object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Dkt. No. 58, at 39).
No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed. As the time for filing
objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See
Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear
error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
For these reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 58) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 46) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to
Defendants Mandalaywala and the Superintendent of Great Meadow, and they are DISMISSED
from this action; and it is further

2

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED without
prejudice as to D. Bennett, and an exhaustion hearing will be scheduled on Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim against D. Bennett; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with
the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2020
Syracuse, New York

3