UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
December 5, 2011
PRINCE PILGRIM, PLAINTIFF,
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND BRIAN FISCHER, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff pro se Prince Pilgrim brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated by defendants New York State Department of Correctional Services and its Commissioner, Brian Fischer.*fn1 (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) filed September 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece recommended that defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 69) be granted and Pilgrim's Complaint be dismissed.*fn2 (See generally R&R, Dkt. No. 74.) Pending are Pilgrim's objections to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 77.) For the reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
II. Standard of Review
Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole,No. 04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id.
Pilgrim alleges-largely by reciting paragraphs of legal standards-that Judge Treece erred when he: (1) improperly summarized the background of the case, and (2) recommended that the Complaint be dismissed as moot. (See Dkt. No. 77 at 2, 4-6.) In addition to these "objections," Pilgrim reasserts his demand for a jury trial, and for monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See id. 5-6.) The court addresses each of these arguments in turn.
First, Pilgrim's objection to the background is of no moment as Judge Treece's summary is neither objectionable nor error. Likewise, his second objection, which focuses on his belief that the new directive is "vague," was already addressed in the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 77 at 5; R&R at 7.) Because Pilgrim's objection on this point merely repeats his previous argument, it does not warrant de novo review. Finally, Pilgrim's remaining claims, regarding his demand for a jury trial and non-equitable relief under section 1983, were already addressed in the previous memorandum-decision and order. (See generally Dkt. No. 57.) In sum, none of Pilgrim's assertions amount to an actual objection, and thus, de novo review is unnecessary. Having found no clear error in the R&R, the court accepts and adopts Judge Treece's R&R in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece's September 1, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 74) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 69) is GRANTED and Pilgrim's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties by mail and certified mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.