The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
Currently before the Court in this pro se prisoner civil rights action are Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45), and United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles's Report-Recommendation recommending that one of Plaintiff's retaliation claims be dismissed, and that the remaining three retaliation claims withstand dismissal (Dkt. No. 102). Neither party has filed Objections to the Report-Recommendation. For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
On October 11, 2000, Plaintiff filed this action against thirteen (13) individuals employed by the New York State Department of Correctional Services, at Auburn Correctional Facility. Although Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a number of constitutional violations on the part of these thirteen Defendants, the only claims that remain after the Second Circuit's February 1, 2006, Summary Order are Plaintiff's four (4) retaliation claims against five (5) Defendants. (Dkt. No. 78.)*fn1 With regard to these retaliation claims, generally, in his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the First Amendments were violated when Defendants retaliated against him on four separate occasions for filing grievances. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.)
On April 16, 2001, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. (Dkt. No. 26.) On October 11, 2002, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 45.) On February 12, 2003, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 60, 61.) On September 10, 2003, District Judge Joseph M. Hood issued a Memorandum-Decision and Order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 68.) On October 10, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit from the Decision and Order. (Dkt. No. 73.) On February 1, 2006, the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order, affirming in part and remanding in part Judge Hood's Memorandum-Decision and Order. (Dkt. No. 78.) Specifically, the Second Circuit remanded Plaintiff's four (4) retaliation claims against the five (5) Defendants, with specific instruction that the Court "determine, in light of the Second Circuit's intervening decision of Gill v. Pidlypchak, 389 F.3d 379 (2d. Cir. 2004), whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants engaged in retaliatory conduct that would 'deter a similarly situated individual of ordinary firmness from exercising his constitutional rights.'" Gill v. Calescibetta, 157 F. App'x. 395 (2d Cir. 2005). (See also Dkt. No. 78.)
In February 2007, the parties submitted supplemental briefing on the retaliation issue.
(Dkt. Nos. 94, 95.) In their brief, Defendants concede that triable issues of fact exist regarding the portion of Plaintiff's retaliation claim relating to the two periods of keeplock confinement he experienced. (Dkt. No. 95.) However, Defendants argue that the remaining two retaliation claims (which deal with the termination of Plaintiff's employment in the prison mess hall, and the posting of one of his grievances in the mess hall) should be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 95.)
On March 11, 2009, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. No. 102.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended (1) that Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendants Pidlypchak and Calescibetta relating to the posting of Plaintiff's grievances in the mess hall be dismissed, but (2) that Plaintiff's retaliation claim relating to his termination from employment in the prison mess hall be referred for trial, along with Plaintiff's two retaliation claims relating to his keeplock confinement.*fn2 Familiarity with the grounds of the Report-Recommendation is assumed in this Decision and Order.
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Standard of Review on Objection from Report-Recommendation
When specific objections are made to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).*fn3 When only general objections are made to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court reviews the report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Brown v. Peters, 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept.22, 1997) (Pooler, J.) [collecting cases], aff'd without opinion, 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir.1999).*fn4 Similarly, when a party makes no objection to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court reviews that portion for clear error or manifest injustice. See Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) [citations omitted]; Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition [citations omitted]. After conducing the appropriate review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
B. Standard Governing Motion for Summary Judgment
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, summary judgment is warranted if "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the Court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In addition, "[the moving party] bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the... [record] which it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of any genuine issue of material fact." Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). However, when the moving party has met this initial responsibility, the nonmoving party must come forward with "specific facts showing a genuine issue [of material fact] for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).
A dispute of fact is "genuine" if "the [record] evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the novmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. As a result, "[c]onclusory allegations, conjecture and speculation... are insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact." Kerzer v. Kingly Mfg., 156 F.3d 396, 400 (2d Cir. 1998) [citation omitted]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). As the Supreme Court has famously explained, "[The nonmoving party] must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical ...