Haigler v. Fischer et al
Filing
44
DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.'s 39 Report, Recommendation and Order in its entirety. Defendants' motions to strike 34 and motion to dismiss 19 are granted. The clerk of Court shall take all s teps necessary to close the case. A copy of the Decision and Order along with this entry have been mailed to Robert Haigler, 05-A-1619, 3550 Bivona St., Apt. 11-A, Bronx, NY 10475. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 11/22/2023. (LAS)This was mailed to: Robert Haigler.Clerk to Follow up
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________
ROBERT HAIGLER,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
17-CV-574-A
v.
SUPERINTENDENT BRADT,
CAPTAIN COVENY,
INVESTIGATOR SPENGLER,
SGT. BARTELLA, and
OFFICER NOLAN, 1
Defendants.
______________________________________
This prisoner civil rights case was referred to Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth
Schroeder, Jr. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for the performance of pretrial
proceedings.
On May 2, 2023, Magistrate Judge Schroeder issued a Report,
Recommendation and Order (“RR&O”) (Dkt. No. 39) recommending that the Court
grant both Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 19) and
Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 34) Plaintiff’s sur-reply (Dkt. No. 33) filed in
opposition to the motion to dismiss. With respect to the motion to dismiss, Judge
Schroeder recommends that the Court (1) dismiss the first five causes of action
asserting violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as
they fail to comport with the three-year statute of limitations period, and Plaintiff’s
Upon screening the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 16) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A, this Court terminated B. Fischer, Commissioner as a party to this civil lawsuit.
1
1
numerous other case filings bar his invocation of equitable tolling; (2) dismiss the
sixth cause of action alleging Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution because
Plaintiff failed to allege a due process violation beyond mere submission of a false
misbehavior report and false testimony at the subject disciplinary hearing, and in the
alternative, failed to allege actual malice; and (3) dismiss the seventh cause of
action alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process violations as it is barred by the
doctrine of collateral estoppel/ issue preclusion.
Plaintiff filed two motions (Dkt. Nos. 40, 42) for extensions of time to file
objections to the RR&O, and the Court granted both motions (Dkt. Nos. 41, 43).
Thus, Plaintiff’s deadline to file objections became July 24, 2023. He did not file
any.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) provides, “[t]he district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to” (emphasis added). “When no timely objection is filed,
[however,] the [C]ourt need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” 1983 Advisory Committee
Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Patton v. Ford Motor Co., 14-CV-0308-RJA-HBS,
2017 WL 2177621, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76148, *5 (W.D.N.Y. May 18, 2017).
The Court finds no clear error with respect to Magistrate Judge Schroeder’s
recommendations. As such, it is hereby
ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and for the reasons set
forth in the RR&O, Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 34) is GRANTED; and it is
further
2
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 19) the amended
complaint is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Defendants and shall take
all steps necessary to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___s/Richard J. Arcara______
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: November 22, 2023
Buffalo, New York
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?