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.

Williams v. Smith

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 13, 2015

DEANDRE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
N. SMITH, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January 26, 2015, by the Honorable Therèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 114 ("Report-Recommendation"). Plaintiff Deandre Williams ("Plaintiff") timely filed Objections.[1] Dkt. No. 118 ("Objections"). Additionally before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 113 ("Motion").

Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 434 F.Appx. 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011); Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857 , 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey , 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 13320 , 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument.").

In his Objections, Plaintiff generally asserts that this action is not frivolous and that he suffers from a number of medical issues. See generally Objs. Because Plaintiff's Objections consist of general or irrelevant statements, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error and finds none. Furthermore, because the Court grants Defendants summary judgment on all remaining claims against them, Plaintiff's Motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore moot.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 114) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion (Dkt. No. 107) for summary judgment is GRANTED; and it is further;

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 113) for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.