UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
August 31, 2011
JAY RUDY, PLAINTIFF,
AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; N. O'CONNOR-RYERSON, MEDICAL, AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; AND DANIEL BERNS, PSYCHIATRIC, AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff pro se, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Specifically, from what the Court can gather from the complaint, plaintiff appears to allege that prison officials failed to provide him with what he deems to be proper medical care. See Dkt. No. 1. Although plaintiff appears currently to be confined elsewhere, at the times relevant to his claims, plaintiff was confined at the Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn"), located in Auburn, New York. See id.
On August 9, 2011, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, "with leave to replead with respect to [plaintiff's] Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, but without leave to replead insofar as he seeks damages against the Auburn Correctional Facility[.]" See Dkt. No. 40 at 19. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended that the Court dismiss as moot plaintiff's request for injunctive relief in the form of an order directing his transfer out of Auburn. See id. at 14-15. Finally, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended that the Court hold that Auburn enjoys immunity from suit for monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment. See id. at 13-14. Neither party objected to Magistrate Judge Peebles' August 9, 2011 Report and Recommendation.
When a party files specific objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the district court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party fails to make specific objections, however, the court reviews the magistrate judge's report for clear error. See Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Gamble v. Barnhart, No. 02CV1126, 2004 WL 2725126, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2004) (citations omitted). After 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).
Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Peebles' August 9, 2011 Report and Recommendation and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Peebles correctly determined that the Court should dismiss plaintiff's complaint, with leave to replead his deliberate indifference claim, but without leave to replead his claim for damages against Auburn Correctional Facility or his request for injunctive relief seeking a transfer from Auburn Correctional Facility.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' August 9, 2011 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that plaintiff may file an amended complaint within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order;*fn1 and the Court further
ORDERS that, if plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within THIRTY (30) DAYS
of the date of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further order of this Court; and the Court further;
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties in compliance with the Local Rules.*fn2
IT IS SO ORDERED.