Evans v. Griffin et al
DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott's Report and Recommendation 93 in its entirety, and affirming Judge Scott's Decision and Order in its entirety. Plaintiff's motions for prospective or injunctive relief 86 and 89 are denied. Plaintiff's motion for video footage 90 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 91 is granted, and the other pending motions 73 78 and 80 are denied in their entirety. The matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Scott for further proceedings. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 11/23/16. (LAS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHAWN EVANS, 11-A-0681,
DECISION AND ORDER
CORRECTION OFFICER M. BALMER, et al.,
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). On September 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge Scott filed a combined Report
and Recommendation and Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 93), recommending that
plaintiff’s motions for prospective or injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 86 and 89) be denied,
and ordering that plaintiff’s motion for video footage (Dkt. No. 90) be granted in part and
denied in part. Magistrate Judge Scott further ordered that plaintiff’s motion for an
extension of time (Dkt. No. 91) be granted, and that the other pending motions (Dkt.
Nos. 73, 78 and 80) be denied in their entirety.
Plaintiff then filed what he has styled as “Objections to the Decision and Order
with Report and Recommendation.” Dkt. No. 96. Significant parts of plaintiff’s
objections, however, appear to simply repeat, verbatim, portions of Judge Scott’s
Report and Recommendation and Decision and Order. Plaintiff offers no explanation
for this, and his failure to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72 would ordinarily
lead to the Court construe his submission as non-objections. See Mineweaser v. City
of N. Townawanda, 14-CV-144-RJA-JJM, 2016 WL 3279574 (W.D.N.Y. June 15,
2016). Nonetheless, because of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will consider
plaintiff’s “objections” as proper objections. Plaintiff is advised, however, that any
future objections must comply with Local Rule 72.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews Judge Scott’s
recommendations to which plaintiff has objected de novo, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A), the Court reviews Judge Scott’s non-dispositive orders to determine
whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court has carefully reviewed
Judge Scott’s Report and Recommendation and Decision and Order, the record in this
case, and the pleadings and materials submitted by the parties. Upon such review, it is
ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court adopts Judge Scott’s
Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and pursuant to and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),
the Court affirms Judge Scott’s Decision and Order in its entirety.
The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Scott for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____Richard J. Arcara____________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: November 23, 2016
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?