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.

Raszell Reeder v. Michael Hogan

October 13, 2011

RASZELL REEDER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL HOGAN, OMH COMMISSIONER; JOANNE WALDRON, UNIT CHIEF, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; MAUREEN BOSCO, FORENSIC PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; GREGORY SAVAGE; MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; JAMES MORGAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH; TARA BROSSEAU, I.G.P. SUPERVISOR, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; THOMAS LAVALLEY, ALSO KNOWN AS THOMAS LAVALLE; DALE ARTUS, SUPERINTENDENT, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; STEVEN RACETTE; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SECURITY, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Raszell Reeder ("Plaintiff"), are the following: (1) a motion filed by the nine above-captioned individuals ("Defendants") requesting that this action be dismissed, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), based upon Plaintiff's failure to diligently prosecute this action, and comply with the Court's Orders and the Local Rules of Practice in this District (Dkt. No. 33); (2) a Report-Recommendation, issued by United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles, recommending that Defendants' motion be granted and that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (Dkt. No. 34); and (3) Plaintiff's Objection and Supplemental Objection to the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. Nos. 35, 40).*fn1 For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Defendants' motion is granted; and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Original Complaint, Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss, and Magistrate Judge Peebles' First Report-Recommendation on that Motion

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 28, 2009, alleging a host of civil rights claims against Defendants. (Dkt. No. 1.) For a more detailed recitation of Plaintiff's claims, and the factual allegations giving rise to those claims, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint in its entirety, Magistrate Judge Peebles' thorough Report-Recommendation, and Part I.A. of the Court's Decision and Order of March 31, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 28, 30.)

On March 5, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. No. 21.) On March 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed, with leave to file an Amended Complaint with regard to Plaintiff's claims for medical indifference, excessive force, inadequate conditions of confinement, and mail tampering. (Dkt. No. 28.)

B. Court's Decision and Order of March 31, 2011, Regarding Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss

On March 31, 2011, this Court issued a Decision and Order that (1) accepted and adopted in Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation its entirety, (2) granted Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (3) dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's conspiracy claim, his retaliation claim(s), his interference-with-the-grievance-process claim, and his New York State tort claim(s), and (4) dismissed without prejudice, and with leave to file an Amended Complaint within thirty days, Plaintiff's excessive-force claim, his medical-indifference claim, his mail-tampering claim, and his inadequate-conditions-of-confinement claim. (Dkt. No. 30.) This Court also advised Plaintiff that his entire action would be dismissed unless his amended complaint was limited to the claims dismissed without prejudice, and cured the pleading defects identified in Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation, and in Part III of the Court's Decision and Order. (Id.)

C. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Defendants' Current Motion to Dismiss, and Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation on that Motion

On April 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 31.) However, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint failed to comply with the terms of Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation (which, again, was adopted by this Court in its entirety). (Compare Dkt. No. 31 with Dkt. No. 28.) As a result, out of an extension of special solicitude to Plaintiff, on April 29, 2011, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Decision and Order that (1) stayed discovery, and (2) granted Plaintiff an additional thirty days (i.e., until May 31, 2011, once weekends and federal holidays are considered) to file a Second Amended Complaint that complied with the terms of the Report-Recommendation issued on March 1, 2011, and the Decision and Order adopting that Report-Recommendation, issued on March 31, 2011. (Dkt. No. 32.) In that Decision and Order, Magistrate Judge Peebles specifically notified Plaintiff that, "unless he files a [Second] [A]mended [C]omplaint fully complying with the terms of this decision and order within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of this order, I will recommend to District Judge Suddaby that this action be dismissed in its entirety." (Id. at 7.)

However, Plaintiff failed to file such a Second Amended Complaint. (See generally Docket Sheet.)

As a result, on June 3, 2011, Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of this action based on Plaintiff's failure to submit a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with the Court's Decision and Order of March 31, 2011. (Dkt. No. 33.)

On June 16, 2011, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a second Report-Recommendation recommending that this action be dismissed in its entirety, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute the action or comply with a Court order. (Dkt. No. 34.) In support of his recommendation, Magistrate Judge Peebles found that each of the five-factors ...


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.