United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sedney Delano, Gowanda Correctional Facility Gowanda, NY Plaintiff, pro se.
Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, of the State of New York, Colleen D. Galligan, Esq., Assistant New York State Attorney, Albany, NY, Attorney for State Defendants.
Lemire, Johnson Law Firm, Gregg T. Johnson, Esq. Bradley J. Stevens, Esq., Malta, NY, Attorneys for Defendant Douglas B. Collyer.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
NORMAN A. MORDUE, District Judge.
On May 1, 2014, defendant Douglas B. Collyer, Assistant Clinton County District Attorney moved (Dkt. No. 17) to dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 6) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendant Collyer violated plaintiff's rights when he obtained a copy of plaintiff's medical records. Upon referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(c), United States Magistrate Judge Therèse Wiley Dancks has issued a thorough Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 91) recommending that the motion be granted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo those parts of the Report-Recommendation to which plaintiff specifically objects. Where, however, an objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments, the Court reviews for clear error. See Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008). When no objections are made, the Court conducts clear error review. See Kaboggozamusoke v. Rye Town Hilton Hotel, 370 F.Appx. 246, 248, n.1 (2d Cir. 2010). Plaintiff submits an objection (Dkt. No. 92) to the Order and Report-Recommendation arguing that the portion of the decision holding that absolute immunity protected defendant Collyer from plaintiff's claims is "clearly contrary to law." Therefore, the court conducts a de novo review of this portion of the decision.
After thorough review of the record and applicable law, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Dancks' analysis. As he did in his opposition (Dkt. No. 33) to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff argues that defendant Collyer's actions "fall outside the scope of absolute immunity." As discussed in Judge Dancks' recommendation, defendant Collyer requested and received plaintiff's medical records while preparing for the trial on plaintiff's criminal indictment. Consequently, the Court agrees that defendant Collyer's actions were "reasonably related to decisions whether or not to begin or to carry on a particular criminal prosecution, or to defend a conviction, " rather than "gathering and piecing together... evidence for indications of criminal activities and determination of the perpetrators"-the latter being investigative functions not entitled to absolute immunity. Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161, 166 (2d Cir. 2012).
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 91) of United States Magistrate Judge Therèse Wiley Dancks is accepted and adopted; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant Douglas B. Collyer's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is granted with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant Douglas B. Collyer is dismissed from this action; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this Memorandum-Decision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules ...