United States District Court, N.D. New York
JOSEPH H. TOWER, Plaintiff,
ANDREW CUOMO, Governor; ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Atty. Gen.; and THOMAS CHASE, Correction Officer, Defendants.
JOSEPH H. TOWER, Plaintiff, Pro Se, North Adams, Massachusetts.
DECISION and ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Joseph H. Tower ("Plaintiff") against the three above-captioned individuals ("Defendants") arising from the results of criminal and prison disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiff that occurred in or before 1990, are (1) United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel's Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and the governing statute of limitations, and (2) Plaintiff's Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 5.)
Even when construed with the utmost of liberality, Plaintiff's Objection fails to contain a specific challenge to Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation. ( Compare Dkt. No. 5 [Objection] with Dkt. No. 4 [Report-Recommendation].) As a result, Plaintiff's is entitled to only a clear-error review of the Report-Recommendation, which level of review the Report-Recommendation easily survives: Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the correct legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Court would add only that, even if the Report-Recommendation were subjected to a de novo review, the Report-Recommendation would survive that review.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Defendants ...