United States District Court, Southern District of New York
April 15, 2003
KERWIN JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
PHILIP COOMBE, JR., ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis A. Kaplan, District Judge
Defendants object to the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox to the extent that it denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted in part plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.
Having reviewed the record, the Court has concluded that the motion should have been granted as against all defendants on the ground of qualified immunity and, in the case of defendants McGinnis and Coombe, lack of personal involvement. Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the question whether any of the defendants violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In particular, there is no basis for supposing that defendant Walsh's failure to call Matthews and Pizarro in view of the general nature of plaintiff's objection "to this whole hearing" violated well established constitutional rights of which Walsh should have been aware. Nor is there any basis for concluding that McGinnis and Coombe violated clearly established rights in disregarding, if disregard they did, plaintiff's letters, much less that they are chargeable with knowledge that such inaction would have violated such rights. Further, in view of the fact that there is no reason to suppose that a more detailed statement of facts, which plaintiff wished to present via an amended complaint, would cure the problem, there is no reason to grant leave to amend.
Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is denied. The Clerk shall enter final judgment and close the case.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.