DERRICK HAMILTON New Haven, CT, Plaintiff, Pro Se
CATHY Y. SHEEHAN, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General, HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY. Attorney for Defendant.
RANDOLPH F. TREECE, Magistrate Judge.
The above matter comes to me following a Report-Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece, duly filed on the 23rd day of May 2013. Following fourteen (14) days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent me the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein.
After careful review of all of the papers herein, including the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, and no objections submitted thereto, it is
1. The Report-Recommendation is hereby adopted in its entirety.
2. The defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is granted.
3. The Clerk is directed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly.
4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon all parties and the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Derrick Hamilton brought this civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hamilton originally brought the action against twenty-two Defendants, alleging a myriad of constitutional violations spanning a two-year period of time during his incarceration in four state correctional facilities, all while he was in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"). Dkt. No. 1, Compl. On March 22, 2012, the Honorable Mae A. D'Agostino, United States District Judge, adopted this Court's Recommendations, granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in part, and dismissed seventeen Defendants from this action. Dkt. Nos. 52 & 53. Thereafter, on January 8, 2013, the remaining Defendants - Joseph T. Smith, G. Gardner, M. Signorella, D. Forbes, and Joe Wolczyk - moved for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Dkt. No. 62. In accordance with this District's Local Rules of Practice, Defendants attached to their Motion the Court's "Notification of the Consequences of Failing to Respond to a Summary Judgment Motion." Id. A response to that Motion was due on or before February 19, 2013.
Also on January 8, 2013, the Clerk of the Court sent Plaintiff a separate Notice notifying him of the nature of summary judgment and warning him of the consequences that could occur should he fail to respond to the Defendants' Motion. Dkt. No. 63. On February 14, 2013, Plaintiff sought, and this Court granted, a thirty-day extension of time for him to respond to the Motion. Dkt. No. 65; Text Order, dated Feb. 14, 2013 (extending Plaintiff's response deadline to March 18, 2013). To date, no response has been filed on Plaintiff's behalf. Having provided Plaintiff with ample opportunity to respond and ample warning of the consequences of ...