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, filed by Faris AbdulMatiyn ("Plaintiff") against fifteen employees of the City of New York Department of Correction or the New York State Department of Correctional Services, are the following: (1) a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Allen, Benbow, Rowe and Valezquez (hereinafter, the "City Defendants") (Dkt. Nos. 102-106); (2) a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Johnson, Walsh, Farnum, Debroize, Forshee, Hanmer, Murphy, Nowicki, Barboza, Capolo, and Becker (hereinafter, the "State Defendants") (Dkt. No. 107); and (3) United States Magistrate Judge David R. Homer's Report-Recommendation recommending that the City Defendants' motion be granted in its entirety, and that the State Defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part (Dkt. No. 121). Neither party has submitted an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. For the following reasons, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, and all the claims asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint are dismissed except for his First Amendment claim that Defendants Hanmer, Murphy, and Nowicki denied him the right to pray.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 15, 2006, having signed it on or before December 1, 2006. (Dkt. No. 1.) Generally, construed with the utmost of liberality, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following six claims against the above-captioned Defendants:
(1) all four City Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs during his incarceration at Rikers Island between approximately May 5, 2005, and September 16, 2005;
(2) certain of the State Defendants (presumably including Johnson, Walsh, Murphy and Farnum) violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by regularly placing him in restraints and involuntarily committing him to the Central New York Psychiatric Center ("CNYPC") in April of 2006, following his release on parole from Sullivan Correctional Facility;
(3) certain of the State Defendants (presumably including Becker, Hanmer, Murphy, Nowicki and Capolo) violated his rights under the First Amendment by failing to provide him with halal religious meals and prayer time while he resided at CNYPC, between approximately April of 2006, and December 1, 2006;
(4) certain of the State Defendants (presumably including Johnson and Murphy) violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by performing, or authorizing, an unlawful strip search on him between approximately April of 2006, and December 1, 2006 (specifically, one search immediately before he left Sullivan Correctional Facility, another such search immediately after he arrived at CNYPC, and other such searches "on a few occasions" at CNYPC and whenever he was transported to outside medical facilities during the referenced time period);
(5) certain unidentified State Defendants violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide him with adequate living conditions at CNYPC between approximately April of 2006, and December 1, 2006 (specifically, by not allowing him to clean his room for the first five months, and by allowing his bathroom to remain filthy and infested with bugs, despite Plaintiff's complaints); and
(6) certain of the State Defendants (presumably including Johnson and Walsh) violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by treating him differently than other similarly situated individuals, specifically, by civilly confining male sex offenders such as himself after parole but not doing so to female sex offenders. (See generally Dkt. No. 1 [Plf.'s Compl.].)
For a recitation of the factual allegations giving rise to these claims, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint in its entirety, and Magistrate Judge Homer's thorough Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 121.)
B. Briefing on Parties' Motions
For the sake of brevity, and because this Decision and Order is intended primarily for the review of the parties, the Court will not recite the legal arguments advanced by the parties during the rather extensive briefing that has occurred on the two motions currently pending before the Court. The Court will simply note that the City Defendants were afforded the opportunity to file three memoranda of law, the State Defendants were afforded the opportunity to file two memoranda of law, and ...