The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Judge:
ORDER ADOPTING R&R (DOC) JAIL,
On May 19, 2011, pro se plaintiff Dwayne Jones ("Jones") filed this § 1983 action against the New York City Department of Corrections ("Defendant"), claiming that he was illegally strip-searched on October 15, 2003 and April 14, 2006 while incarcerated at Rikers Island Correctional Facility.*fn1 On October 21, 2011, Defendant moved to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Jones's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e).
On November 11, 2011, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the Court grant Defendant's motion and dismiss Jones's complaint with prejudice as time barred. On December 30, 2011, Jones filed objections to the R&R.
For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Peck's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Jones's claims are, therefore, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
I.Magistrate Judge Peck's R&R
"The statute of limitations for a § 1983 action is three years." Donaldson v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 10-1364-cv, 2011 WL 4508735 at *1 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2011). Since Jones claims to have been strip-searched on October 15, 2003 and April 14, 2006, he had until April 14, 2009 to file a claim relating to the later strip-search. Jones, however, did not file the instant action until May 19, 2011. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Peck determined that Jones's complaint was time barred. (R&R 5-6.)
The statute of limitations may, however, be equitably tolled where a medical condition prevents a plaintiff from proceeding in a timely fashion. See Baroor v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 362 Fed. App'x 157, 160 (2d Cir. 2010).Jones argued that the limitations period should be tolled and attached a September 14, 2010 medical record indicating that Jones suffered from bipolar disorder and was depressed. Magistrate Judge Peck noted that the medical records were dated over a year after the statute of limitations expired, and found that Jones "failed to show that his mental issues prevented him from timely filing his § 1983 claim." (R&R 7.) Accordingly, he recommended Jones's claims be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.)
In reviewing a report and recommendation, a 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)(C). "The district court may adopt those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record." Feehan v. Feehan, No. 09 Civ. 7016 (DAB), 2001 WL 497776, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2011). Where a party makes a timely "specific written objection," the ...