UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
September 26, 2012
AROR ARK O'DIAH, PLAINTIFF,
A. MAWHIR, CAYUGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; P. BUTTARAZZI, CHIEF PHYSICIAN, CAYUGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY INMATE CLINIC; JESUS FLORESCA, CHIEF PHYSICIAN, CAYUGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; K. STEVENSON, CAYUGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY PROGRAM COORDINATOR; MARY WARNER, NURSE ADMINISTRATOR, CAYUGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge
DECISION & ORDER
This pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule N.D.N.Y. 72.3(c).
The Report-Recommendation dated September 5, 2012 recommended: (1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted as to all claims and all defendants and the complaint be dismissed in its entirety; and (2) Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment be dismissed.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-
Recommendation, essentially raising the same arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge.
When objections to a magistrate judge's Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the Plaintiff's objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt in its entirety the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be GRANTED as to all claims and all defendants and the complaint DISMISSED in its entirety, and Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment be DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.