to Special Housing Unit ("SHU") for possessing other inmates' legal work and lying in violation of prison regulations. He claims that he had previously been charged with the same violations in 1993 and that those charges were ultimately dismissed. He further alleges that Sergeant Henderson, one of the three defendants who allegedly escorted him to SHU, informed him that the charges were based on his investigation of the incident which included a conversation with Superintendent Strack who told him that the plaintiff was not authorized to do other inmates' legal work. Plaintiff alleges that he spent fourteen days in SHU with loss of privileges while awaiting a disciplinary hearing and that the charges were ultimately dismissed in light of testimony from Lieutenant Cheeseman and Corrections Officer Rubik of Otisville. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his due process rights and that their conduct constituted both harassment and degradation. He seeks $ 150.00 in compensatory damages for each day he was confined in SHU and $ 5,000 in punitive damages.
Defendants have filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking dismissal of the complaint for failure to set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has failed to submit any opposition to defendants' motion despite service of the motion upon him at the latest address given by him following his release from confinement and from which no prior mail has been returned undeliverable and despite the passage of one year during which nothing has been heard from plaintiff.
After due consideration, the Court recommends that the amended complaint be dismissed for the reasons amply supported and thoroughly articulated in defendants' memorandum of law. It is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that the defendants' motion be granted and the complaint dismissed, and it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Report-Recommendation, by regular mail, upon the parties to this action.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the parties may lodge written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. See Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6 (a), 6 (e).
DATED: September 17, 1997
Albany, New York
Ralph W. Smith, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.