Woodward v. Mullah et al

Filing 114

ORDER denying 40 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 41 Motion to Amend or Correct; granting 55 Motion ; denying 46 57 Motions for appointment of counsel; and 71 motion for sanctions; adopting Report and Recommendations re 79 . Case is referred back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 5/5/2010. (JMB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

S H A W N W O O D W A R D , (00-A-6563) Plaintiff, v. ORDER 08-CV-463

MULLAH, et al., D e fe n d a n ts .

T h is case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On November 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion fo r partial summary judgment and on November 10, 2009 filed a motion for leave to amend and to join new defendants. On February 22, 2010, Magistrate Judge M c C a rth y filed a Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that p la in tiff's motions for partial summary judgment and for leave to amend be d e n ie d , and ordering that his motion for sanctions be denied.1 P la in tiff filed objections to the Report, Recommendation and Order on F e b ru a ry 26, 2010. Defendants filed a response thereto. P u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo d e te rm in a tio n of those dispositive portions of the Report, Recommendation and

The Report, Recommendation and Order also addressed other motions by plaintiff, but no party filed objections to those rulings.

1

1

Order, to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the R e p o rt, Recommendation and Order, and after reviewing the submissions, the C o u rt adopts the proposed findings of the Report, Recommendation and Order. W ith respect to the motion for sanctions, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district court "may reconsider any pretrial matter under this [s e c tio n ] where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous o r contrary to law." The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's appeal and Magistrate Judge M c C a rth y's Report, Recommendation and Order. Upon such review, the Court fin d s that Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report, Recommendation and Order is n e ith e r clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's R e p o rt, Recommendation and Order, plaintiff's motions for partial summary ju d g m e n t and for leave to amend are denied, and his motion to join new d e fe n d a n ts is granted. The case is referred back to Magistrate Jude McCarthy for fu rth e r proceedings. SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard J. Arcara
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: May 5, 2010

2