Hill et al v. County of Niagara et al

Filing 121

DECISION AND ORDER adopting 119 Report and Recommendation and denying 100 motion for a filing injunction. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 03/24/2022. (MGB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________
MICHAEL HILL and KAREN
PITTMAN,
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs,
18-CV-6022 EAW
-vJAMES PAYNE, C. WILSON,
Correction Sergeant, S. LATONA,
JAMES R. VOUTOUR, KEVIN PAYNE,
Chief Jail Administrator, and THOMAS
LOUGHREN,
Defendants.
___________________________________
Plaintiff Michael Hill (“Hill”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Upstate
Correctional Facility, who was a pretrial detainee at the Niagara County Jail at the time of
the events at issue in this action, and plaintiff Karen Pittman (“Pittman”), Hill’s fiancée
(collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. 1). On
July 28, 2021, defendants Kevin Payne, James Payne, S. Latona, C. Wilson, and James R.
Vourtour (collectively “Defendants”) filed a motion for the issuance of a filing injunction
to prevent Plaintiffs from filing additional repetitive motions and/or discovery demands.
(Dkt. 100). On March 8, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson issued
a thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court deny Defendants’
motion for a filing injunction. (Dkt. 119).

-1 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had 14 days to file objections to the
Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed. The Court is not required to
review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which objections were
not filed. See Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where
parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure [to timely] object to a magistrate’s
report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the
magistrate’s decision.”).
Notwithstanding the lack of objections, the Court has conducted a careful review of
the Report and Recommendation, as well as the prior proceedings in the case. The Report
and Recommendation concludes that although Plaintiffs have filed several motions, the
motions were not vexatious or sufficiently duplicative to warrant the relief sought.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation recommends that this Court deny
Defendants’ motion for a filing injunction. The Court finds no reason to reject or modify
Magistrate Judge Payson’s Report and Recommendation. For these reasons, the Report
and Recommendation is adopted in full.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 118)
recommending denial of Defendants’ motion for a filing injunction (Dkt. 100) is adopted
in its entirety.

-2 

SO ORDERED.

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Dated: March 24, 2022
Rochester, New York

-3