March 31, 2008
WOODROW FLEMMING, PLAINTIFF,
MRS. ROSADRO, HEAD OF RMU MEDICAL; ANTHONY DURRANTE, SECURITY, RMU WALSH MEDICAL; ANTHONY BOUCAUD, DEPUTY FOR ADMINISTRATION, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DR. SHARMA, HEAD MEDICAL DR. AT RMU MEDICAL; DR. BURDICK, MEDICAL DOCTOR; LT. ADMIKS, HEARING LT. AND ACTING CAPTAIN, RMU; SGT. BISHOP, SGT. FOR SECURITY, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; SGT. PIERCE, SECURITY SGT., RMU WALSH; N. SMITH, NURSE ADMINISTRATOR, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; EVELYN WEISSMAN, HEAD MEDICAL DR., UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DEANA L. BUFFHAM, MEDICAL MEDICATION NURSE, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; NURSE BATIS, RMU MEDICAL; LISA O'BRYANT, NURSE, RMU WALSH MEDICAL; MRS. LOVETT, SECURITY OFFICER, RMU WALSH; C.O. SZAJER, SECURITY OFFICER AT RMU WALSH; C.O. GARDNER, C.O. WITH STICK SGT. OFFICER; NURSE DAVIS, MEDICATION NURSE, RMU WALSH; NURSE MILLER, RMU WALSH MEDICAL; MICHAEL MAHER, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT, RMU WALSH MEDICAL; MARIA TIRONE, DEPUTY SUPT. FOR PROGRAM, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, GLENN S. GOORD, DONALD SELSKY, AND LESTER WRIGHT, DR., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated January 15, 2008, Magistrate Judge Treece recommended that this Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. See Dkt. No. 59. In response to these recommendations, Plaintiff filed a document that he referred to as "Plaintiff Amend Complaint, Memoran of Law in Support of Rule 8(a), 34, 37, 56(c), Pursuant 56.1, 56.2, 1871, 1988 and 1985." See Dkt. No. 60. After reviewing that document, the Court determined that it would consider the document to constitute Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Treece's recommendations. See Text Order dated February 6, 2008.
As Magistrate Judge Treece noted, "Plaintiff's Complaint is illegible at certain points and unintelligible at others." See Dkt. No. 59 at 2 n.2 (citation omitted). The same is true of Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Treece's recommendations. See, generally, Dkt. No. 60. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed these objections carefully and has construed them to raise all arguments reasonably related to Plaintiff's claims and Magistrate Judge Treece's recommendations regarding the disposition of those claims.
In his objections, to the extent that the Court can decipher them, Plaintiff appears to make many of the same arguments that he made in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court finds such objections without merit for the same reasons that Magistrate Judge Treece rejected those arguments in his Report-Recommendation and Order. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff is requesting leave to file an amended complaint, the Court denies that request based upon a review of his proposed amendments as futile. See Tocker v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 470 F.3d 481, 491 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that "a motion for leave to amend a complaint may be denied when amendment would be futile" (citation omitted)).*fn1
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Treece's January 15, 2008 Report-Recommendation and Order is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint is GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case.
Buy This Entire Record For