UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
September 30, 2007
MICHAEL CHAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
GLENN S. GOORD, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August 17, 2007 by the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 60). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Plaintiff Michael Chavis, which were filed on September 4, 2007. Objections (Dkt. No. 61).
It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge... may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved because, as stated therein, Plaintiff did not sufficiently exhaust his administrative remedies. Though Plaintiff may have provided substantive notification of his claims to Defendants during his disciplinary hearings, he "did not fulfill his obligation to procedurally exhaust available remedies with regard to those claims." Report- Recommendation (Dkt. No. 60) at 24.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 60) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, thatDefendants' Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED, without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.