Litchmore v. Correctional Sergeant Williams et al

Filing 49

ADOPTION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 42 Report and Recommendations, 32 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Correctional Sergeant Williams, Superintendent P. Heath, Correction Officer C. Doer. Having conducted the appropriate level of revie w, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, dated February 19, 2013, be and hereby is APPROVED, ADOPTED, and RATIFIED by the Court in its entirety. This action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 8/5/2013) (ft)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
ALONZO LITCHMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.

11 Civ. 7546 (DAB)(JCF)
ADOPTION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT WILLIAMS,
CORRECTION OFFICER C. DORR,
CORRECTION OFFICER “JOHN DOE 1,"
CORRECTION OFFICER JOHN DOE 2,"
SUPERINTENDENT P. HEATH,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------X
DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.

On February 19, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge James
C. Francis IV issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
recommending that Defendant Correctional Sergeant Richard
Williams, Defendant Correction Officer Christopher Doerr,
Defendant Correction Officer John Doe 1, Defendant Correction
Officer John Doe 2, and Defendant Superintendent Philip Heath’s
(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment be
GRANTED.
The facts in this matter are meticulously detailed in Judge
Francis’ Report, and they will not be restated here.

For the

reasons set forth below, the Court having conducted the
appropriate level of review, Judge Francis’ Report shall be

ADOPTED in its entirety.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

I.

Objections to the Report and Recommendation
A.

Standard of Review of a Report and Recommendation

A district judge may designate a magistrate judge to submit
proposed findings of fact and recommendations for dispositive
motions, including a motion for summary judgment.

28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). “Within fourteen
days after being served with a copy [of a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation], a party may serve and file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

A

court may adopt those portions of the report to which no timely
objection has been made, as long as there is no clear error on
the face of the record.

DiPilato v. 7–Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp.

2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
A district court must review de novo “those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

However, “to the

extent that the party makes only conclusory or general arguments,
or simply reiterates the original arguments, the Court will
review the Report strictly for clear error.”
2

DiPilato, 662 F.

Supp. 2d at 339 (internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted).
After conducting the appropriate levels of review, a court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

While 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) give a court
discretion to consider additional material that was not submitted
to the magistrate judge, Hynes v. Squillance, 143 F.3d 653, 656
(2d Cir. 1998), a party has “no right to present further
testimony when it offered no justification for not offering the
testimony at the hearing before the magistrate.”

Pan Am. World

Airways, Inc. v. Int’l Bros. of Teamsters, 894 F.2d 36, 40 n.3
(2d Cir. 1990); Paddington Partners v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132,
1138 (2d Cir. 1994) (upholding a court’s refusal to consider a
new affidavit submitted with a party’s objections to the report);
Smith v. Marcellus, 917 F. Supp. 168, 174 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (“[A]
district court will ordinarily refuse to consider de novo review
arguments, case law, and/or evidentiary material which could have
been, but was not presented to the magistrate judge.”).
“Considerations of efficiency and fairness militate in favor
of a full evidentiary submission for the Magistrate Judges
consideration.”

Hynes, 143 F.3d at 656; Morris v. Amalgamated

Lithographers of Am., Local One, 994 F. Supp. 161, 163 (S.D.N.Y.
1998) (discussing the policy rational for such militation);
3

Nazario v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Labor, No. 01 Civ. 2347, 2003 WL
21399004, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2003) (same).

“Thus, courts

generally do not consider new evidence raised in objections to a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation’ absent a compelling
justification for failure to present such evidence to the
magistrate judge.”

Azkour v. Little Rest Twelve, Inc., No. 10

Civ. 4132, 2012 WL 1026730, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2012)
(quoting Tavares v. City of New York, No. 08 Civ. 3782, 2011 WL
5877548, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011)).

Despite the general

leniency accorded to pro se parties, Howell v. Port Chester
Police Station, No. 09 Civ. 1651, 2010 WL 930981, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 15, 2010), courts generally do not allow pro se parties to
litigate matters in their objections that were not presented to
the magistrate judge.

See, e.g., Sidney v. Caron, No. 09 Civ.

1326, 2012 WL 4380392, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2012); Odom v.
Kerns, No. 99 Civ. 10668, 2008 WL 2463890, a *5 (S.D.N.Y. June
18, 2008); Morgan ex rel. Morgan v. Barnhart, No. 04 Civ. 6024,
2005 WL 2338709, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Nazario, 2003 WL
21399004, at *3.

B.

Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report

Plaintiff filed a timely Objection to the Report in which he
only objects to the Recommendation to grant Defendants’ Summary
4

Judgment Motion on grounds that Plaintiff did not exhaust his
administrative remedies available prior to filing a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 suit.1

(Obj. 1; Report 14.) Plaintiff now, for the first

time, claims he is a entitled to the special circumstances
exception because he requested an Inspector General Office
(“IGC”) investigation; the exception’s applicability would excuse
his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

(Obj. 1.)

Although he had the opportunity to do so before Judge Francis,
Plaintiff did not assert a special circumstances argument when he
submitted his Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment to Judge Francis.2

Plaintiff offers no justification

for failing to raise this argument previously.

Accordingly, the

Court reviews the Report, including the unopposed recommendations
and applicability of the special circumstances exception, for
clear error.

Amadasu v. Ngati, No. 05 Civ. 2585, 2012 WL

3930386, at *6-7 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2012).

Having found none,

the court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety.

1

Defendants submitted an untimely and unhelpful response.

2

Plaintiff requested an IGO investigation on October 1,
2011, fifteen months before filing his Memorandum in Opposition
on January 10, 2013. (Obj.’s Aff., Letter to IGO.)
5

II.

Conclusion
Having conducted the appropriate level of review, it is

hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, dated
February 19, 2013, be and hereby is APPROVED, ADOPTED, and
RATIFIED by the Court in its entirety.
DISMISSED with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
August, 5 2013

6

This action is hereby