United States District Court, Northern District of New York
March 2, 2015
ALBERT WEATHERS, Plaintiff
DAVID ROCK, Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility; DONALD UHLER, Deputy Superintendent of Security, Upstate Correctional Facility; RABBI HELLER; RABBI FRIEDMANN; MICHAEL LIRA, Deputy of Programs, Upstate Correctional Facility; and JEFF MCCOY, Deputy Commissioner of Programs, Defendants.
ALBERT WEATHERS Plaintiff pro se
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL G. MCCARTIN, AAG Attorneys for Defendants
SCULLIN, Senior Judge
Plaintiff, a former New York State prison inmate, commenced this action in February 2013, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). See Dkt. No. 1.
When Plaintiff failed to appear for a scheduled deposition on two occasions in violation of the Court's Orders, Defendants renewed a prior request for dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint. See Dkt. No. 51. In a Report and Recommendation dated December 8, 2014, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended that the Court grant Defendants' motion and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 53 at 10. Plaintiff filed a conclusory objection to that recommendation, arguing that he objected primarily because of issues due to "his mental state and not receiving Court documents." See Dkt. No. 54 at 2. With regard to his mental state, Plaintiff alleged that he
has been diagnos [sic] with SHU Syndrom [sic], impulse controll [sic], post traumatic stress disorder, adjust [sic] D/O with mixed anxiety, and is under the care of mental health counselors and doctors. He is prescribed medication Paroxetine 20 mg, Seroquel 25 mg, Buspar 15 mg, to help him combat his condition.
Plaintiff does not indicate when he was diagnosed with any of these ailments or why or how they would prevent him from complying with the Court's Orders, particularly those requiring his attendance at a deposition. Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court "give him a chance to comply to all Courts [sic] rulings in all cases in the Norther District Court." See id.
When the parties do not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation or when their objections are conclusory or general in nature, the court reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote omitted). After conducting this review, "the Court may 'accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . . . recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Peebles' December 8, 2014 Report and Recommendation for clear error and manifest injustice and has found none. As Magistrate Judge Peebles noted, Plaintiff has a history of non-compliance with Court directives and Defendants' legitimate discovery requests. See Dkt. No. 53 at 9. In addition, Magistrate Judge Peebles explained that, although he was concerned in his earlier decision about whether Plaintiff had been adequately warned about the potential consequences of his refusal to be deposed, "it is now well-document [sic] that he was made aware of those consequences in both the court's mandatory Rule 16 scheduling order and [his] decision and order dated September 24, 2014." See Dkt. No. 53 at 9-10.
The record supports Magistrate Judge Peebles' conclusion that the sanction of dismissal is warranted in this case. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' December 8, 2014 Report and Recommendation, see Dkt. No. 53, is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss, see Dkt. No. 51, is GRANTED and Plaintiffs complaint 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.