UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 22, 2006
MELVIN O. WRIGHT, SR., PLAINTIFF,
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; COMMISSIONER GOORD; A. DIRIE, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; M. MCDERMOTT, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; M. KASUNIC, CORRECTIONS OFFICER, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), brought this action for monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was denied due process during a disciplinary hearing held against him, that he was subjected to excessive force, and that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24) was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gustave J. DiBianco for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(c). In his Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28), Magistrate Judge DiBianco recommends that the motion be granted and the action dismissed.
Plaintiff has submitted objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 29). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducts a de novo review of those parts of a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to which a party specifically objects. In view of the extent of plaintiff's objections, the Court conducts a de novo review of all issues. Defendants have interposed no objections to the Report and Recommendation, nor have they submitted further papers in response to plaintiff's objections (Dkt. No. 30).
Upon de novo review, the Court determines that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge DiBianco is correct in all respects.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28) is accepted and adopted; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24) is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that the action is dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.