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.

Scott v. Nichols

United States District Court, Second Circuit

May 21, 2013

HAROLD J. SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
M. NICHOLS, Tier III Assistant, JAMES PAGANO, Tier III Hearing Officer, J. GREY, Officer-In-Charge of Urinalysis Testing Program, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, P. VANGUILDER, Deputy Superintendent of Security Services of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, DARWIN LECLAIR, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, KEITH F. DUBRAY, Acting Director of the State Department of Correctional Services (

HAROLD J. SCOTT, Elmira, New York, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York MICHAEL G. McCARTIN, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General, Albany, New York, Attorney for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

NORMAN A. MORDUE, District Judge.

Upon referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(c), United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece has prepared a Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 72) in this pro se inmate civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Magistrate Judge Treece recommends that the defendants' motion (Dkt. No. 56) for summary judgment be granted and the case dismissed. Magistrate Judge Treece's recommendation is based on his conclusion that the Third Department's disposition in plaintiff's Article 78 proceeding collaterally estops plaintiff from asserting most of his claims in this Court. Magistrate Judge Treece further concluded that the sole remaining claim - the claim that plaintiff had been denied due process in his disciplinary proceeding - lacks merit as a matter of law. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Treece did not reach the issues of supervisory liability or qualified immunity.

After obtaining an extension of time to object, plaintiff has filed a lengthy objection (Dkt. No. 75). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo those parts of a report and recommendation to which a party specifically objects. Upon de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation and Order in its entirety.

It is therefore

ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 72) is accepted and adopted in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that defendants' motion (Dkt. No. 56) for summary judgment is granted and the case dismissed with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this Memorandum-Decision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York.

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.