Woodward v. Afify et al

Filing 159

DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer's 143 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' 125 motion to dismiss is granted as to Counsel Livermore and Corrections Officers Sewalt, Corsi, and Otto, but is denied as to pro se plaintiff's First Amendment claims against defendants Muslim Chaplin Afify and Sergeant Krause. A copy of the Decision and Order along with this docket entry have been mailed to Shawn Woodward, 00-A-6563 at FRANKLIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Box 10, Malone, NY 12953-0010 and at Ulster Correctional Facility, PO Box 800, Napanoch, NY 12458. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 10/22/2019. (LAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SHAWN WOODWARD,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
14-CV-856-A

v.

MUSLIM CHAPLIN AFIFY, et al.,
Defendants.

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for the conduct of pretrial proceedings. On September 28, 2018,
Magistrate Judge Roemer filed a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 143)
recommending that the motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
of defendants Afify, Corsi, Krause, Livermore, Otto, and T. Sewalt’s (Dkt. No. 125) be
granted in part, but denied as to pro se plaintiff’s First Amendment claims against
defendants Afify and Krause.
On October 15, 2018, defendants filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 144). Pro se plaintiff also filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation on October 23, 2018 (Dkt. No. 145). On November 13, 2018,
plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ objections (Dkt. No. 147), and defendants filed
their response on November 20, 2018 (Dkt. No. 148). Plaintiff filed a reply on
December 20, 2018 (Dkt. No. 151), and the matter was deemed submitted. The Court
deems oral argument unnecessary.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections have been made. Upon de novo review, and after carefully reviewing the
submissions from the parties, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions for
the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge. It is, therefore
ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in
Magistrate Judge Roemer’s Report and Recommendation, defendants’ motion to
dismiss (Dkt. No. 125) is granted as to Counselor Livermore and Corrections Officers
Sewalt, Corsi, and Otto, but is denied as to pro se plaintiff’s First Amendment claims
against defendants Muslim Chaplin Afify and Sergeant Krause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Richard J. Arcara________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: October 22, 2019