Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cicio v. Graham

March 15, 2010

TERRY CICIO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GRAHAM; PETER M. SIGONA; RICHARD D. RUSTON, III; PHIL J. MANNA; A. VEGA; AND RYERSON, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District 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 declaratory and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive use of force, failure to intervene, and denial of adequate medical care stemming from a disturbance involving 17 or more inmates occurring in a "holding pen" or "cage" at Auburn Correctional Facility ("ACF") on March 7, 2006. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 35) and defendants cross-moved for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 38). Upon referral of the motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(c), United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 41) recommending that this Court deny plaintiff's motion, grant defendants' motion, and dismiss the action.

Plaintiff has submitted an objection (Dkt. No. 42). Plaintiff states that the Court should have reviewed the transcripts from his disciplinary hearing, because the testimony of defendants Peter M. Sigona and Richard D. Ruston, III at that hearing "contradicts the reports that [Magistrate Judge Peebles] relied on in making [his] decision." Plaintiff gives no specifics and thus appears to be interposing a general objection directed to the issues of excessive force and failure to intervene. His objection does not refer to the issue of medical indifference.

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, as here, a party interposes only general objections to a report and recommendation, the Court reviews for clear error or manifest injustice. See Davis v. Chapple, 2010 WL 145298, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2010), 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 accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and Recommendation. In view of plaintiff's objection, which, as noted, appears to be directed to the evidence on the issues of excessive force and failure to intervene, the Court briefly revisits these issues. Although plaintiff interposes only a general objection on these issues, in light of his pro se status and the nature of the objection, the Court conducts a de novo review. Plaintiff requests the Court to obtain the transcript of the disciplinary hearing and contends that the testimony given by Sigona and Ruston at that hearing contradicts the reports relied on by Magistrate Judge Peebles; however, as explained below, the award of summary judgment to defendants is based on plaintiff's own evidence.

The record evidence pertinent to the excessive force and failure to intervene claims is briefly summarized as follows. In a declaration supporting the motion for summary judgment, Sigona, a sergeant at ACF, states:

On March 7, 2006, I was supervising the hospital depot area at Auburn. While waiting with a group of inmates in the holding pen in the hospital depot, inmate Baer became disruptive and began threatening staff. Baer ignored several orders by me to cease his behavior. I then entered the holding pen with Officers Manna and Ruston with the intention of removing inmate Baer.

All of the inmates in the pen were ordered to one side of the pen, while Baer remained on the other. Inmate Green refused to move, so I guided him to the side directed.

While I was guiding inmate Green, plaintiff Cicio then lunged at Officer Manna, striking him with a closed fist and knocking him to the ground. I immediately went to Officer Manna's aid and assisted with gaining control of Cicio by taking control of Cicio's right side. Officer Manna and I then escorted a struggling Cicio out of the pen, after which Cicio and Officer Manna fell to the floor. Once Cicio stopped struggling, he was removed from the area and taken to medical for examination.

The declaration from defendant Philip J. Manna, a corrections officer at ACF, is consistent with Sigona's declaration.

Plaintiff's complaint states that defendant Sigona pushed plaintiff into defendant Manna "who then grabbed plaintiff by the hair and began to pull plaintiff towards [the] holding pen door at which point plaintiff was thrown to the floor and kneed in [the] nose." The complaint further states that, after plaintiff was brought to his feet and escorted out of the immediate area, defendant Manna "once again grabbed plaintiff by his hair and pushed plaintiff's face into [the] wall." According to plaintiff, Sigona and Ruston "stood and watched the incident" and did not "intervene[] to stop the assault."

Plaintiff testified in his deposition that there were 17 or 18 inmates in the holding pen awaiting transport; that there were no corrections officers in the pen but there were some in the vicinity; that another inmate George Baer started "cursing up a storm" at a corrections officer; and that the sergeant told Baer to "cut it out," to which Baer responded, "No." The sergeant then said, "Take him out of there," ordered Baer to come up front, and ordered everyone else to the back of the pen. Instead of coming up front, Baer "sat down in the middle of the cage." Plaintiff stated that everyone else went to the back of the pen except plaintiff and inmate Green; according to plaintiff, they could not go back because "there was no more room." As plaintiff describes it:

There wasn't any more room. And he [Green] was standing directly in front of Inmate Baer. So they started taking Green out of the holding pen, and that's where everything just a whole jumble of things happened. I ended up getting mixed up in that, because one of officers tried to barge in there and push me into the sergeant, and then I got into a use of force behind it. So a whole lot of events that took place after one move. *** Once they started pulling [Green] out [of the pen], other officers barged into the cage. I don't know if done purposely or not, but I was pushed into the sergeant, and from there I was given an assault charge and taken down. ***...[Baer] was sitting there [in the middle of the pen] when Green was being taken out. After I was pushed to the sergeant, I don't know what happened.

Plaintiff's deposition testimony continued:

Q: Was Green eventually taken out?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Now, was he still in the cage when you got pushed into the sergeant?

A: I am not sure.

Q: It was all happening at the same time?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you see any officers go to Baer to get him up and out?

A: Not specifically, because by this time it was just chaos in the cage. I was on the floor ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.