Watson v. Koenigsmann et al
DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott's 104 Report and Recommendation. Defendant's 90 motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court shall take all steps necessary to close the case. A copy of the Deci sion and Order along with this docket entry have been mailed to Jean Bernier, 29463-054, ALLENWOOD MEDIUM FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O. BOX 2000, WHITE DEER, PA 17887. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 2/19/2020. (LAS)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DECISION AND ORDER
This pro se civil rights case was referred to Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for the conduct of pretrial proceedings. On January
22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Scott filed a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 104),
recommending that defendant Sweet’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 90)
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 be granted.
No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Upon review
of the Report and Recommendation and the underlying record, it is hereby
ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and for the reasons set forth in
the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to exhaust
administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) because he did not f ile a
timely inmate grievance claiming to have suffered retaliation caused by defendant
Sweet for exercising a First Amendment right. Even though plaintiff attempts a
collateral attack on findings of a New York court that may defeat the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction1, the Court does not reach those issues, or issues of claim preclusion
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction
over claims requiring review of a state-court judgment asserted by a state-court litigant
complaining of injury caused by the prior judgment. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005); Sung Cho v. City of New York, 910 F.3d 639 (2d Cir. 2018).
and issue preclusion, because simpler grounds to resolve the case are sufficient.
Defendant Sweet’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 90) is therefore granted
because plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
The Clerk shall enter Judgment for defendant ORC Sweet and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_s/Richard J. Arcara____
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: February 19, 2020
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?