Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas Goodson v. Lester N. Wright; Donald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


August 24, 2012

THOMAS GOODSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LESTER N. WRIGHT; DONALD SAWYER, DIRECTOR OF CNYPC; BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER OF DOCCS; CHRIS BOYER, TREATMENT ASSISTANCE WORKER AT CNYPC; ROB AMBROSE, TREATMENT ASSISTANCE WORKER AT CNYPC; MARK LUKZAC, TREATMENT ASSISTANCE WORKER AT CNYPC; DOMINICK MARANGI, TREATMENT ASSISTANCE WORKER AT CNYPC; CASEY JONES, TREATMENT ASSISTANCE WORKER AT CNYPC; LIN, NURSE AT CNYPC; AND CYNTHIA LAWS, MEDICAL DOCTOR AT CNYPC, DEFENDANTS.

DECISION and ORDER

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 23, 2012 by the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Northern District of New York Local Rule 72.3(d). Dkt. No. 29 ("Report-Recommendation").

Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c). "If no objections are filed . . . reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error." Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citations omitted).

Here, no objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Magistrate Judge Peebles's Report-Recommendation. See generally Dkt. Plaintiff requested -- and the Court granted -- three extensions to file objections to the Report-Recommendation.*fn1 Dkt. Nos. 30-32 (and accompanying Text Orders). Plaintiff failed to file objections during each extension. See generally Dkt. On August 21, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's fourth request for an indefinite extension. Dkt. No. 33; Text Order, Aug. 21, 2012. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error or manifest injustice.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 29) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants' two dismissal Motions (Dkt. Nos. 9, 25) are GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) in this action is DISMISSED in its entirety, with leave to replead within thirty (30) days of this Decision and Order;*fn2 and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon the parties to this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.