Sanchez v. DOCS Medical Department, et al
-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Motions terminated: 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Kathleen Murray, 68 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Kath leen Murray, 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DOCS Medical Department, Dr. Braselman, MD, 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DOCS Medical Department, Dr. Braselman, MD, 69 MOTION to Withdraw filed by Carlos Sanch ez; granting 39 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 62 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 68 Report and Recommendations; finding as moot 69 Motion to Withdraw. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on October 13, 2016. (APG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DOCS MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,
KATHLEEN MURRAY, and
DR. BRASELMAN, M.D.
Pro se plaintiff Carlos Sanchez commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against
the defendants on January 13, 2012. See Docket Item 1. The plaintiff alleged that the
defendants wrongfully discontinued or threatened to discontinue his medication while he
was incarcerated at the Elmira Correctional Facility.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Court (Hon. Richard J. Arcara) referred
this case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer “for full pretrial matters
and to hear and report upon dispositive motions.” Docket Item 54. On March 7, 2016, I
replaced Judge Arcara as the district judge assigned to this matter. Docket Item 59.
After the defendants all moved for summary judgment, see Docket Items 39 &
62, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation, dated August 16, 2016,
recommending that the motions be granted. See Docket Item 68. Although the plaintiff
did not file statements of facts opposing the defendants’ submissions and did not even
respond to one of the defendant’s summary judgment motions, Judge Roemer “opted to
review the record to determine whether a genuine dispute exists with respect to any
material fact.” See id. at 7.
Three days after Judge Roemer issued his Report and Recommendation, 1 the
clerk’s office docketed the plaintiff’s “Letter Motion to Withdraw Case,” in which the
plaintiff respectfully “apologize[d] for bother[ing] you with this matter” and told Judge
Roemer that he had “decided [t]o not continue[ ] with this litigation (lawsuit).” Docket
Item 69. Not surprisingly, then, neither side filed any objections to Judge Roemer’s
August 16, 2016 Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing objections has
A district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendation of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
In doing so, the district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a
magistrate judge’s recommendation to which an objection is raised. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72 require a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate
judge to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50
The letter motion was dated August 9, 2016, and stamped “filed” on August 15, 2016,
but it was not entered on the docket until August 19, 2016. For that reason, it was not
available to Judge Roemer when he issued his Report and Recommendation on August
After carefully reviewing Judge Roemer’s recommendation and the plaintiff’s
letter, this Court adopts the August 16, 2016 Report and Recommendation (Docket Item
68) in its entirety. Therefore, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Docket
Items 39 & 62) are granted and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
As a result of the above, the plaintiff’s letter motion is moot, and a decision on the
plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2016
Buffalo, New York
s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?