Jean-Laurent v. Los et al
Filing
50
DECISION AND ORDER ACCEPTING Judge Foschio's December 2, 2014 45 Report and Recommendation in its entirety; DENYING Plaintiff's 47 Objections; GRANTING Defendants' 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; DISMISSING the complaint; DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to close this case. Signed by William M. Skretny, Chief Judge on 3/8/2015. (MEAL) - CLERK TO FOLLOW UP -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PHILLIP JEAN-LAURENT,
Plaintiff
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
12-CV-132S(F)
C.O. R. LOS and C.O. J. DAMSTETTER,
Defendants.
1.
This Court previously referred the matter to the Honorable Leslie G. Foschio,
United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) to prepare
and file a report and recommendation containing findings of fact, conclusions of law and
a recommended disposition on any dispositive motion. On June 5, 2014, Defendants filed
a motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 in its entirety. Despite the scheduling order and the express warning in
Defendants’ notice of motion that failure to respond could result in dismissal of his
complaint, Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to Defendants’ motion.
2.
On December 2, 2014, Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation
finding that Defendants had established their entitlement to summary judgment and
recommending that the motion be granted in its entirety. This Court then accepted
Plaintiff’s untimely-filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on January 14,
2015. Plaintiff objects therein to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that: (1) precluding
Plaintiff from attending both the law library and Ramadan services during the same evening
call-out did not impose a substantial burden on his ability to freely exercise his religion; and
(2) the enforcement of the correctional facility’s Movement Policy was reasonably related
to a legitimate penological interest. (Docket No. 47.)
3.
Because Plaintiff failed to raise these arguments before the Magistrate
Judge, the Report and Recommendation is reviewed under a clear error rather than de
novo standard. See Reiseck v. Universal Comm’ns of Miami, No. 06 Civ. 0777(LGS), 2014
WL 5364081, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2014); see also Patterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts
Municipal Wholesale Electric Co., 840 F.2d 985, 990-91 (1st Cir. 1988). This Court finds
no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions, and therefore accepts
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that this Court ACCEPTS Judge Foschio’s December
2, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 45) in its entirety;
FURTHER, that Plaintiff’s Objections (Docket No. 47) are DENIED.
FURTHER, that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
(Docket No. 41) is GRANTED and the complaint is dismissed;
FURTHER, that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 8, 2015
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
Chief Judge
United States District Court
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?