United States District Court, N.D. New York
September 24, 2014
DANIEL FEQUIERI, Plaintiff,
M. EDDY, Sergeant, Upstate Correctional Facility; ST. MARY, C.O., Upstate Correctional Facility; FOURIOR, Correctional Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; BOYD, C.O., Upstate Correctional Facility; WOODS, C.O., Upstate Correctional Facility; HOLMES, Nurse, Upstate Correctional Facility; and GOKEY, Sergeant, Upstate Correctional Facility, Defendants.
DANIEL FEQUIERI, Upstate Correctional Facility, Malone, New York, pro se, Plaintiff.
JOSHUA E. MCMAHON, AAG, OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, The Capitol, Albany, New York 12224, Attorneys for Defendants.
FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants knowingly housed him with rival gang members on February 19, 2010, March 15, 2010, on two occasions, and two years later on May 20, 2012, and that Defendants did not provide him with adequate medical care for injuries he sustained during a resultant fight on March 15, 2010. See generally Dkt. No. 7, Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 49, which Plaintiff opposed, see Dkt. Nos. 54, 56. On June 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Treece issued a well-reasoned and comprehensive Report-Recommendation and Order, in which he recommended that this Court grant Defendants' motion and dismiss this action in its entirety. See generally Dkt. No. 63. Plaintiff filed objections to these recommendations , see generally Dkt. No. 64, to which, Defendants responded, see Dkt. No. 65. Finally, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants' submission. See Dkt. No. 66.
When a party makes specific objections to portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court conducts a de novo review of those recommendations. See Twombley v. Oneill, No. 8:11-CV-0569, 2011 WL 5881781, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). Where a party makes only conclusory or general objections, however, the court reviews the report and recommendation for "clear error" only. See Salmini v. Astrue, No. 3:06-CV-458, 2009 WL 1794741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (quotation omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, a district court may decide to accept, reject or modify those recommendations. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
In light of Plaintiff's filing of objections, as well as his pro se status, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation and Order. Having completed that review, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Treece's June 23, 2014, Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED in its entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.