Scott v. Howard et al
Filing
121
DECISION AND ORDER affirming Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio's Decision and Order 108 and adopting Judge Foschio's Report and Recommendation 109 in its entirety. Plaintiff's 45 motion for summary judgment is hereby denied, an d his motions for preclusion 94 97 are dismissed as moot. The matter is recommitted to Magistrate Judge Foschio for further proceedings. A copy of the Decision and Order has been mailed to Randolph Scott, 15-B-2127, GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Box 4000, Stormville, NY 12582-0010. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 10/1/2018. (LAS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RANDOLPH SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
15-CV-1000A
v.
TIMOTHY B. HOWARD,
COUNTY OF ERIE,
Defendants.
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On August 8, 2018, Judge Foschio filed a Decision and Order
(Dkt. No. 108) denying Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 94) to preclude Defendants from
questioning Plaintiff at his deposition with respect to his record of criminal convictions.
Judge Foschio also denied as moot Plaintiff’s letter motion (Dkt. No. 97) requesting that
Judge Foschio sign an Order precluding Defendants from this line of questioning. On
August 20, 2018, Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 109),
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45) be denied.
On August 23, 2018 the Plaintiff filed an appeal of Judge Foschio’s Decision and
Order (Dkt. No. 110), and on August 31, 2018 he filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 112). Defendants filed their replies on August 24, 2018 and
September 4, 2018, respectively (Dkt. Nos. 111 and 113). Both matters were deemed
submitted without oral argument.
As to Judge Foschio’s Decision and Order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A),
the Court must review the Decision and Order to determine whether it is “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon such review, and assuming that the appeal is not
moot, the Court affirms Judge Foschio’s Decision and Order.
As to Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1), the Court must make a de novo review of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objections have been made. Upon de novo review,
and affording the pro se plaintiff the strongest reasonable reading of his arguments, the
Court adopts Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation.
It is, therefore ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the
reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 109), Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45) is denied, and Plaintiff’s motions for preclusion
(Dkt Nos. 94 and 97) are dismissed as moot.
This matter is recommitted to Judge Foschio for further proceedings. In light of
the Plaintiff’s pro se status and the Court’s duty to liberally construe pro se pleadings to
raise the strongest claims they raise, any future motions for summary judgment
concerning the Plaintiff’s religious exercise claim should be analyzed under both the
First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2.1
1
The Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages (Docket No. 1 at 12), which
are unavailable under RLUIPA, see Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 280
(2011), but in an abundance of caution, the Court believes it would be prudent to
analyze the Plaintiff’s religious exercise claims under RLUIPA.
IT IS SO ORDERED
____Richard J. Arcara____________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: October 1, 2018
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?