Brown v. Chappius et al
Filing
171
DECISION AND ORDER granting 96 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 117 Motion ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 139 Report and Recommendations.; finding as moot 167 Motion ; finding as moot 168 Motion ; finding as moot 169 Motion to Compel. (Clerk to close case.) (Copy of this Decision and Order sent by first class mail to Plaintiff Carl Brown.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 5/20/19. (JMC)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________
CARL BROWN,
13-CV-105
Plaintiff,
V.
DECISION
AND ORDER
PAUL CHAPPIUS, JR., et al.,
Defendants,
__________________________________
Before the Court for review is Magistrate Judge Leslie G.
Foshcio’s Report and Recommendation of August 11, 2016 (Dkt.
No. 139). This case was reassigned to the Honorable Michael A.
Telesca on May 14, 2019. For the reasons discussed herein, the
Court adopts the R&R in full.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Carl Brown (“Plaintiff”) proceeding pro se, commenced this
civil rights action on February 5, 2013, asserting various claims
for relief against Defendants, all employees of New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS).
On
July 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
constitutional violations while incarcerated at Elmira Correctional
Facility.
Defendants
filed
a
motion
(Dkt. No. 96) on February 27, 2015.
for
summary
judgment
Thereafter, on January 14,
2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for an injunction (Dkt. No. 117)
requesting the Court to transfer him from Clinton Correctional
Facility.
On March 31, 2016, Defendants filed their opposition to
this motion for injunction.
In a Report and Recommendation dated
August 11, 2016, Magistrate Judge Leslie Foschio filed a Report and
Recommendation granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. No. 96) and denying Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief
(Dkt. No. 117).
The law provides that either party may serve and file written
objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy”
of
the
Report
and
Recommendation.
28
U.S.C.
§
636(b)(1)(c).
Plaintiff filed timely objections (Dkt. No. 145) to the Report and
Recommendation.
file a
Defendants did not file any objections but did
response
to
Plaintiff's
objections
(Dkt.
No.
149). A
district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a
Report and Recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by
the
magistrate
judge.
The
judge
may
also
receive
further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Id.
After review of the extensive record, and for the reasons
stated herein, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted
and Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is denied.
CONCLUSION
After carefully analyzing each of Plaintiff’s claims, the
2
Court
agrees
with
Magistrate
Judge
Foschio’s
recommendation
granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 96).
The Court, having reviewed de novo Magistrate Judge Foschio’s
Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff's objections, hereby adopts
the proposed findings for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge
Foschio’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 139).
Therefore,
the objections are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
motion
for
summary
judgment
(Dkt.
No.
96)
is
Defendants’
GRANTED
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
and
The
Defendant’s motion for an injunction requesting the Court to
transfer him to another correctional facility is DENIED as moot
(Dkt. No. 117).
Plaintiff’s motions requesting trail transcripts,
a status conference, and to compel the Court to answer defendants’
summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 167, 168, and 169) are all DENIED as
moot.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
__________________________
MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:
Rochester, New York
May 20, 2019
3
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?