Eldridge et al v. Williams et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 36 Report and Recommendations in its entirety, as further set forth in this document. This Order resolves docket entry number 19. This case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Ellis for general pretrial management. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/20/11) Copy Mailed By Chambers. (cd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------x
TAMMI ELDRIDGE et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
No. 10 Civ. 423 (L TS)(RLE)

-v-

STATE OF NEW YORK

aI.,

Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------x
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECO~MENDATION

Pro se plaintiffs Tammi Eldridge, Joyce Powell, Jazmin Shelton and Sharon
Mahry ("Plaintiffs"), incarcerated in the New York State corrections system, commenced this
action by filing a complaint on January 19, 20 10, pursuant to 42 U.s.c. § 1983 against the State
of New York and certain corrections officers ("Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege that their Eighth
Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated by Defendants'
deliberate indifference and failure to enforce a smoking prohibition within the Bedford Hills
facility where Plaintiffs are or have been incarcerated, which has led to their exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") causing physical and mental injuries. On July 14, 201 0,
Defedants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which was then referred to Magistrate Judge
Ronald Ellis. Judge Ellis issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") dated February 1,
2011. Objections were due by February 15, 2011. The only objection received by the Court was
filed by Plaintiff Sharon Mabry, objecting because the Report's Background section does not
describe the medical symptoms she has allegedly suffered because of her exposure to ETS.
Mabry also argues that the Report should:
ELDRIDGE WPD

VERSION 412rn J

include me as one of the Plaintiffs also to go forwarded as afforded to the remaining
Plaintiffs. Plaintiff request either clarification or correction of her obj ection to those
portions of the R&R that have been objected to in the herein aforementioned.
(Objection ~ 11) (quoted from the original without alteration).
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.c.A. § 636(b)(1 )(C) (West 2009). The
Court reviews the Report strictly for clear error where no objection has been made and will make
a de novo determination regarding those parts of the Report to which objections have been made.
See Pearson-Fraser v. Bell Atl., No. 01 Civ. 2343,2003 WL 43367, at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6,
2003). "[OJbjections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the
district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original [papers J will not
suffice to invoke de novo review." Vega v. Artuz, No. 97 Civ. 3775,2002 WL 31174466, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002). In the face of such objections, the Court will review the Report
strictly for clear error. See Pearson-Fraser, 2003 WL 43367, at * 1.; Camardo v. Gen. Motors
Hourly-Rate Employees Pension PI1ID, 806 F. Supp. 380,382 (W.D.N.Y. I 992). Although pro se
petitioners are generally accorded leniency when making objections, Walker v. Vaughn, 216 F.
Supp. 2d 290,292 (S.D.N.Y.2002), the objections nevertheless "must be specific and clearly
aimed at particular findings in the magistrate judge's proposal." Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines, 602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D,N.Y. 2009).
The Court has considered carefully Mabry's objection to the Report and finds no
ground for de novo review of any aspect of the Report. With regard to Mabry's claims, the
Report recommends, inter alia, that her claim for injunctive relief be dismissed as she is no
longer incarcerated at the Bedford Hills facility but that she be permitted to go forward with her

ELDRIDGCWPD

VERSION 4 f 20!!1

2

claims for punitive and compensatory damages against the individual Defendants in their
individual capacity. Mabry has offered only a conclusory statement that may be construed as
challenging the dismissal of her claim for injunctive relief, and the Report's lack of description
of Mabry's medical symptoms is immaterial to recommendations of the Report or to the
continuing viability of Mabry's remaining claims. To the extent Mabry seeks clarification, the
Court reiterates the Report's recommended conclusion: Mabry cannot go forward with a claim to
change what is happening at Bedford Hills now because she is not incarcerated there now, but
Mabry can go forward with a claim for damages based on what happened at Bedford Hills in the
past when she was incarcerated there. The Court is satisfied that the Report contains no clear
error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety.
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted with respect to claims
against the State of New York and against the individual defendants in their official capacities.
The motion is also granted with respect to Mabry's claim for injunctive relief. The motion is
denied in all other respects. This Order resolves docket entry number 19. This case remains
referred to Magistrate Judge Ellis for general pretrial management. The Court certifies pursuant
to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
April 20, 2011

~RSWAIN

United States District Judge

ELDRIDGE WPD

VERSION 4!2(l!ll