UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 8, 2012
WILLIAM EDWARDS, PLAINTIFF,
MARTIN HORN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard J. Sullivan, District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff William Eddwards brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging that at various times, Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments during his incarceration at five different facilities on Rikers Island. By Order dated September 1, 2010, this matter was referred to the Honorable James L. Cott, Magistrate Judge. On April 4, 2011, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 3, 2011, Judge Cott set a deadline of March 4, 2011 for Plaintiff to submit an opposition to Defendants' motion. Although Judge Cott thrice extended this deadline - on May 18, 2011, June 8, 2011, and June 29, 2011 - Plaintiff never submitted an opposition. Accordingly, Judge Cott properly considered Defendants' motion fully submitted.
On February 14, 2012, Judge Cott issued the attached forty-six page Report and Recommendation (the "Report"), recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted except as to Plaintiff's retaliatory termination claim against Defendant Rosa to the extent that Plaintiff seeksnominal or punitive damages. In the Report, Judge Cott advised the parties that failure to file timely objections to the Report would constite a waiver of those objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No party has filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Cf. Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1993).
When no objections to a report and recommendation are made, the Court may adopt the report if there is no clear error on the face of the record. Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); La Torres v. Walker, 216 F. Supp. 2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). After reviewing the record, the Court finds that Judge Cott's well-reasoned and careful Report is not facially erroneous. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety and, for the reasoons set forth therein, grants Defendants' motion to dismiss as to all but one of Plaintiff's claims. The court denies the motion as to Plaintiff's retaliatory termination claim against Defendant Rosa, and only to the extent that Plaintiff seeks nominal or punitive damages against her. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion located at Doc. No. 88.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.