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.

Marcos A. Manon, Jr v. Albany County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


December 12, 2012

MARCOS A. MANON, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALBANY COUNTY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Marcos A. Manon, Jr. ("Plaintiff") against Albany County ("Defendant"), are the following: (1) Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 22); (2) United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel's Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant's motion be granted (Dkt. No. 34); (3) Plaintiff's Objection to the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 40); and (4) Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 35). For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted; Defendant's motion is granted; Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed; and Plaintiff's motion is denied.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 5, 2011. (Dkt. No. 1.) Generally, construed with the utmost of liberality, Plaintiff's Complaint claims that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 120101 et seq. ("the ADA"), by wrongfully holding him in segregated confinement at Albany County Correctional Facility from some point in September 2011 through October 3, 2011 (beyond the expiration of a disciplinary sentence imposed on him for cursing at a correctional officer), because his prosthetic leg contained a metal screw. (Id.)

For a more detailed recitation of Plaintiff's claim and supporting factual allegations, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint in its entirety, as well as Part I of the Court's Decision and Order of June 12, 2012, and Part I of Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation, which accurately summarize that Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 10, 34.)

B. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

On August 7, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. Nos. 22-25.) Generally, in its motion, Defendant asserts the following three alternative arguments: (1) Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed based on a lack of standing, given that Plaintiff does not allege facts plausibly suggesting that he has suffered an injury that is redressable by the Court; (2) in the alternative, Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff has alleged facts plausibly suggesting that, before filing this action, he did not exhaust his available administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1997 ("PLRA"); (3) in the alternative, Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that he suffered a physical injury as required by the PLRA (and any injunction sought by Plaintiff is moot, given that he was transferred to a correctional facility in Ohio following the filing of this action). (Dkt. No. 23, Parts I and II.)

In addition, in its reply, Defendant argues, inter alia, that, even if Plaintiff has satisfied the PLRA requirements, he has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that he is being excluded from participation in, or being denied the benefits of some service, program or activity, by reason of his disability. (Dkt. No. 32.)

C. Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation

On October 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hummel issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant's motion be granted and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 34.) More specifically, Magistrate Judge Hummel reported that, although he was not persuaded by Defendant's exhaustion argument, he was persuaded that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed based on the following three alternative grounds: (1) Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that he suffered a physical injury as required by the PLRA (and he has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting grounds for the award of either punitive damages or injunctive relief); (2) even if Plaintiff satisfied the PLRA requirements, he has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that (a) he is a qualified individual with a disability and (b) he is being excluded from participation in, or being denied the benefits of some service, program or activity, by reason of his disability (and the defects in his ADA claim are so substantive that granting Plaintiff leave to amend would be futile); and (3) in the alternative, Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed based on a lack of standing and mootness, given that his ADA claim seeks not specific relief related to an identifiable harm. (Dkt. No. 34, at Parts II.B. through II.E.)

D. Plaintiff's Objection to the Report-Recommendation

On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 40.) Generally, even when construed with the utmost of liberality, Plaintiff's Objection either addresses matters wholly unrelated to the Report-Recommendation (e.g., events occurring before his incarceration at Albany County Correctional Facility, or at locations other than that Facility), or reiterates the same arguments that he presented in his opposition to Defendant's motion. (Compare Dkt. No. 40 with Dkt. No. 30.) Plaintiff's Objection does not specifically challenge any portion of Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation. (Compare Dkt. No. 40 with Dkt. No. 34.) The closest he comes to doing so is when (1) he argues that "the Court took side [sic] the defendant Albany County C[orrectional Facility]" because of "a conflict of interest," and (2) he argues that the requirement that an inmate suffer a physical injury before suing could cause an inmate to die before his estate can sue. (Dkt. No. 40, at 6-7.) However, those vague arguments do not specifically challenge any particular finding or conclusion rendered by Magistrate Judge Hummel in his Report-Recommendation.

E. Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

On October 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 35.) Generally, in his motion, Plaintiff asks that the Court intervene to prevent "thirsty lawyers from harassing me, by sending me a notification every time a new way of lie [sic] occurs to them. (Id.) Generally, in response to Plaintiff's motion, Defendant argues, inter alia, that (1) no likelihood of success exists because Plaintiff is trying to stop Defendant from merely fulfilling its duty of serving its motion papers on Plaintiff, and (2) no irreparable harm exists because Plaintiff alleges only emotional distress as a result of the service. (Dkt. No. 37.)

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Standard Governing Review of a Report-Recommendation

When a specific objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be "specific," the objection must, with particularity, "identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c).*fn1

When performing such a de novo review, "[t]he judge may . . . receive further evidence. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court will ordinarily refuse to consider evidentiary material that could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance.*fn2

When only a general objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2),(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition.*fn3 Similarly, when an objection merely reiterates the same arguments made by the objecting party in its original papers submitted to the magistrate judge, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation challenged by those arguments to only a clear error review.*fn4 Finally, when no objection is made to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a "clear error" review, "the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id.*fn5

After conducting the appropriate review, the 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).

B. Standard Governing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Magistrate Judge Hummel accurately recites the legal standard governing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 34, at Part II.A.) As a result, this standard is incorporated by reference in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for the review of the parties.

C. Standard Governing a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

Defendant accurately recites the legal standard governing a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 37, at Part I.) As a result, this standard is incorporated by reference in this Decision and Order, which (again) is intended primarily for the review of the parties.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

As explained above in Part I.D. of this Decision and Order, even when construed with the utmost of liberality, Plaintiff's Objection either addresses matters wholly unrelated to the Report-Recommendation (e.g., events occurring before his incarceration at Albany County Correctional Facility, or at locations other than that Facility), or reiterates the same arguments that he presented in his opposition to Defendant's motion. (Compare Dkt. No. 40 with Dkt. No. 30.) Furthermore, as explained in Part II.A. above of this Decision and Order, when an objection merely reiterates the same arguments made by the objecting party in its original papers, the Court subjects the Report-Recommendation to only a clear- error review.

Here, after carefully reviewing all of the papers in this action, including Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Report-Recommendation is correct in all respects. (Dkt. No. 34.) Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Id.) As a result, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. (Id.) The Court would add only that Magistrate Judge Hummel's thorough Report-Recommendation would survive even a de novo review.

B. Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

After carefully considering the matter, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction for each of the alternative reasons offered by Defendant in its opposition memorandum of law. (Dkt. No. 37; see also, supra, Part I.E. of this Decision and Order [summarizing reasons].) The Court would add only that Plaintiff's motion is denied on the additional grounds that (1) the relief sought in the motion is unrelated to the allegations contained in the Complaint,*fn6 and (2) in any event, the motion is moot given that his Complaint has been dismissed.

ACCORDINGLY, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 34) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 22) is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 35) is DENIED.

The Clerk's Office is directed to close this action.


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.