UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
September 18, 2008
SEAN TAPP, PLAINTIFF,
R. TOUGAS, C.O.; C.O. WILSON; M.E. B. SANTINI-CORREAN; C.O. J. RANDO; SGT. MICHAEL; C.O. SHARROW; MR. HARVEY, HEARING OFFICER; DONALD SELSKY; AND MS. JONES, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the custody of New York State Department of Corrections, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming in his amended complaint (Dkt. No. 19) that he was assaulted by corrections officers, denied adequate medical care for injuries sustained during the course of the altercation, and subjected to a lengthy period of disciplinary special housing unit ("SHU") confinement as a result of the incident without having been afforded procedural due process.
Defendants move (Dkt. No. 50) for summary judgment. Plaintiff cross-moves (Dkt. No. 56) for summary judgment.
The motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Magistrate Judge Peebles has issued a thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant defendants' motion, deny plaintiff's motion, and dismiss the action.
Plaintiff interposes specific objections to numerous aspects of Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo those parts of a report and recommendation to which a party specifically objects. Where only general objections are filed, the Court reviews for clear error. See Brown v. Peters, 1997 WL 599355,*2-* 3 (N.D.N.Y.), aff'd without op., 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999). Failure to object to any portion of a report and recommendation waives further judicial review of the matters therein. See Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993).
The Court adopts all factual and legal recitations in the Report and Recommendation. The Court has conducted de novo review of all issues to which plaintiff interposes objections, and adopts Magistrate Judge Peebles' analysis and recommendation with respect to all issues except the recommendation that summary judgment be granted dismissing the excessive force claim against defendants Tougas, Wilson, Rando, Michael, and Sharrow.
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Peebles' recitation of the law and facts with respect to the excessive force claim. The Court agrees with his observation that the question of whether to grant summary judgment to defendants on this issue is a close one; however, in the Court's view, plaintiff's testimony at his deposition and the disciplinary hearing, and the supporting testimony of his inmate witnesses at the disciplinary hearing, are sufficient to raise questions of fact on this claim.*fn1
The Court also rules that the application of the doctrine of qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of the excessive force claims against defendants Tougas, Wilson, Rando, Michael, and Sharrow. Accepting plaintiff's allegations as true for purposes of this motion, these defendants could not reasonably have believed their actions were consistent with plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 (1987).
It is therefore
ORDERED that defendants' motion (Dkt. No. 50) for summary judgment is denied with respect to plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendants Tougas, Wilson, Rando, Michael, and Sharrow, and otherwise granted; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's cross motion (Dkt. No. 56) for summary judgment is denied in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the case will proceed to trial solely on the issue of excessive force; and it plaintiff's excessive force claim might be barred under the rule in Edwards v. Balisok that a prisoner's section 1983 claim is not cognizable where, if successful, it would necessarily implicate the invalidity of a disciplinary determination affecting the length of his confinement.520 U.S. 641, 645-48 (1997). It is not clear on this record that the Edwards rule would preclude plaintiff in the instant case from proceeding on his section 1983 excessive force claim, because it is not clear that a jury determination that defendants used excessive force in subduing plaintiff is further
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is rejected insofar as it recommends summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim of excessive force, and is otherwise accepted and adopted in all respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.