Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Johnson v. Nigam

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


September 18, 2010

ERIC JOHNSON, ALSO KNOWN AS DEBAH J. SMITH, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ANKESH NIGAM; RODGERS, JOHN DOE; AYSHIA ENU, PHYSICIAN, HUDSON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; PETER BOGARSKI; REUTENEAUR, JANE DOE; MCCOY, JOHN DOE; H.M. MILES; JOYCE DUKE; WOLFF, JOHN DOE; ROTHER, JANE DOE; GEORGE, JOHN DOE; TESTO, JOHN DOE; PETER BEHRLE; M. GRAZIANO; MICHAEL AMBROSINO; PHILIP HEATH; T. MAHAR, SENIOR CORRECTION COUNSELOR, GREENE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; T. GAINES; CAULFEILD, JOHN DOE; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; KAREN MEICHT, NURSE, HUDSON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; WINNIE, LIEUTENANT, HUDSON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; AND COFFEY, JOHN DOE, DEFENDANTS, CROSS-CLAIMANTS, AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, alleging that Defendants, twenty-one DOCS employees and two private physicians, violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See, generally, Amended Complaint. On February 2, 2010, Defendants Nigam and Rodgers, the two private physicians, moved for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 94. Plaintiff opposed that motion. See Dkt. No. 113. In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated August 30, 2010, Magistrate Judge Homer recommended that this Court grant Defendants Nigam and Rodgers' motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 114 at 20. Magistrate Judge Homer also dismissed all the cross-claims of all Defendants. See id. at 21. The parties did not file any objections to Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation and Order.

When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote omitted). After conducting this review, "the Court may 'accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . . . recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Homer's August 30, 2010 Report-Recommendation and Order for clear error and manifest injustice; and, finding none, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Homer's August 30, 2010 Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants Nigam and Rodgers' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that the cross-claims of all Defendants are DISMISSED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100918

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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