United States District Court, S.D. New York
August 16, 2005.
WARREN GERMANY, Plaintiff,
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: GERARD E. LYNCH, District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
On July 14, 2005, the Honorable Theodore H. Katz, United States
Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"),
recommending that this Court grant defendant's motion for summary
judgment in this pro se employment discrimination case, and
requiring that any objections to that recommendation be filed
with this Court within ten days of service of the R&R, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The Court has
received and reviewed timely objections filed by plaintiff. Based
on this Court's independent review of the record and of
plaintiff's objections, Judge Katz's characteristically thorough
and well-reasoned R&R is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff, who was employed as a corrections officer at Sing
Sing Correctional Facility, does not appear to challenge Judge
Katz's conclusion that he has failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact regarding his claims of differential treatment,
retaliation, and hostile work environment. Rather, his primary
objection is that summary judgment should be denied "to allow
discovery," and that "if given additional time to obtain
discovery and deposition[s], plaintiff could establish a prima facie case." (Objections, p.
Plaintiff ignores the fact that he has had ample time for
discovery. This action was filed on January 8, 2003. On December
18, 2003, following litigation of defendants' motion to dismiss,
Judge Katz, to whom the case was referred for pre-trial
supervision, entered an order directing that discovery be
completed by June 30, 2004. At plaintiff's request, his time to
complete depositions of the named defendants was extended to July
16, 2004. The docket sheet reflects no further requests for
additional time. Even at this late date, plaintiff gives no
indication of what additional discovery he would like to take, or
why such discovery could be expected to yield evidence favorable
to his case that has not yet been obtained or presented to the
In addition to his primary objection, plaintiff makes several
miscellaneous factual assertions that appear to be intended to
take issue with statements in Judge Katz's R&R. (Objections, pp.
3-4.) None of these assertions creates a genuine issue of
material fact regarding plaintiff's claims of discrimination, or
casts any doubt on the Magistrate Judge's careful analysis of the
Like many employees, plaintiff obviously believes in all
sincerity that he was treated unfairly by his employer. But his
belief does not constitute evidence, and plaintiff has failed to
offer evidence that would permit a reasonable fact-finder to
conclude that he has been discriminated against on the basis of
Accordingly, the recommendation is accepted, the R&R is adopted
as the opinion of the Court, and the defendants' motion for
summary judgment is granted. The Clerk is respectfully directed
to docket plaintiff's objections to the R&R, to enter judgment
for defendant, and to close out the case on the Court's records. SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.