United States District Court, N.D. New York
November 26, 2014
RYAN DENNIS, Plaintiff,
WILLIAM V GRADY et al., Defendants.
GARY L. SHARPE, District Judge.
On October 24, 2014, plaintiff pro se Ryan Dennis filed late objections to a September 23, 2014 Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) issued by Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 10.) With no objections filed on or before October 10, 2014-the deadline within which to file such objections-the court reviewed the R&R, adopted it in its entirety, and entered judgment in favor of defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.)
Even if Dennis' difficult-to-comprehend objections were timely filed, the court would find them to be meritless. The only specific objection to be gleaned from Dennis' filing is his contention that he seeks equitable relief, not damages. (Dkt. No. 10 at 3.) Although unsaid, it appears that Dennis is implying that the well-known rule of Humphrey v. Heck, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), does not apply as urged in the R&R because the object of his complaint is equitable relief. Considering this a specific objection that would invoke de novo review, see Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *4-6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006), the argument nonetheless fails. As the Supreme Court has explained, the Heck rule applies "no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief)." Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005); see Caswell v. Green, 424 F.App'x 44, 45 (2d Cir. 2011).
The remainder of Dennis' "objections" are general and would compel review only for clear error, see Almonte, 2006 WL 149049, at *6. By its previous adoption of the R&R, the court has already found no clear error. (Dkt. No. 8.) For all of the foregoing reasons, Dennis' objections are rejected and denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Dennis' objections (Dkt. No. 10) are REJECTED and DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Summary Order on Dennis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.