Heyliger v. Doe #1 et al

Filing 75

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Dancks, dkt. # 74 is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 68 , is hereby DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on July 29, 2022. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
DEREK A. HEYLIGER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

9:18-CV-336
(TJM/TWD)

KARIN WEST, Inmate Correspondence
Officer/Mail Room Employee, and
TOM FORBES, Business Officer Administrator,

Defendants.
___________________________________________
Thomas J. McAvoy,
Sr. U.S. District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
The Court referred this pro se civil action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to
Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, staff at the
Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Comstock, New York, violated his constitutional
rights by denying him access to the courts and interfering with his legal mail.
After the parties engaged in discovery and motion practice, the Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment. Judge Dancks’s Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 74,
issued on May 21, 2022, recommends that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. Questions of fact exist, Judge Dancks concludes, which permit a jury
to determine whether Defendants deliberately and maliciously prevented Plaintiff from
1

timely filing a claim with the New York Court of Claims. A jury should also decide whether
Plaintiff suffered injury by failing to file that claim, she finds. Judge Dancks also holds that
a jury could also conclude that Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s legal mail
several times in a manner that chilled his access to the courts.
No party objected to the Report-Recommendation, and the time for such objection
has passed. After examining the record, this Court has determined that the ReportRecommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice and the Court
will accept and adopt the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein.
The Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Dancks, dkt. # 74 is hereby
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 68, is
hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2022

2