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.

Murray v. S. Nephew

United States District Court, Northern District of New York

February 25, 2015

ROBERT L. MURRAY, Plaintiff,
v.
S. NEPHEW, RC II (OMH), Clinton Corr. Facility; and G. PROVOST, RC II, Clinton Corr. Facility, Defendants.

ROBERT L. MURRAY PLAINTIFF, PRO SE

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

JUSTIN L. ENGEL, ESQ. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

DECISION AND ORDER

HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Timothy A. Vail (“Plaintiff”) against two above-captioned New York State correctional employees (“Defendants”), are (1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (2) their motion for attorneys’ fees, and (3) United States Magistrate Judge Therèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted, their motion for attorneys’ fees be denied, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos. 54, 60.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety, Defendants motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed.

Generally, in her Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Dancks made the following determinations: (1) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim should be dismissed because of his failure to adduce admissible record evidence from which a rational fact-finder could find a causal connection between his protected conduct and Defendants’ actions; and (2) Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees should be denied because the fact that Plaintiff’s retaliation claim survive the Court’s thorough initial review shows that the claim was not “clearly meritless.” (Dkt. No. 60, at Part III.)

When, as here, no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.: see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Based upon a careful review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper 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. 60.)

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 60) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 54) is GRANTED in part; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees (Dkt. No. 54) is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 5) is DISMISSED in its entirety.


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.