Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harrington v. Vadlamudi

United States District Court, N.D. New York

July 21, 2015

DAVID HARRINGTON, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. VADLAMUDI, Doctor, Marcy Correctional Facility, SANDRA MARTIN SMITH, Nurse Administrator, Marcy Correctional Facility, MARCY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendants.

David Harrington, Pro se Plaintiff Fort Edward, NY.

Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Joshua E. McMahon, Assistant Attorney General, Albany, NY.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

BRENDA K. SANNES, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff David Harrington, a former New York State inmate, commenced this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, against defendants Dr. Vadlamudi, Sandra Martin Smith, and Marcy Correctional Facility. Dkt. Nos. 1, 33. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliated against him for filing grievances, in violation of the First Amendment, and discriminated against him based on his disability in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Dkt. No. 33. Defendants moved under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for judgment on the pleadings solely with respect to plaintiff's disability discrimination claim. Dkt. No. 35.

On April 29, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece issued a Report-Recommendation and Order recommending that the Court grant defendants' motion and dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claims against them under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Dkt. No. 41. Magistrate Judge Treece advised the parties that, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), failure to file written objections to the Report-Recommendation within fourteen days "will preclude appellate review." Dkt. No. 41, p. 8. Plaintiff requested and received an extension, until June 15, 2015, "to appeal... the ADA and rehabilitation act" claims. Dkt. Nos. 43, 44. On June 12, 2015, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 45. To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation.[1]

II. REPORT-RECOMMENDATION

As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See Glaspie v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., No. 10 CV 00188(GBD)(JCF), 2010 WL 4967844, at *1, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131629, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2010) (explaining that when no objections to report and recommendation are made, "the Court may adopt [it] if there is no clear error on the face of the record.'") (quoting Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F.Supp.2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)).

A. Dr. Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin Smith

Magistrate Judge Treece recommended dismissing plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against Dr. Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin Smith on the basis that "they may neither be sued in their individual nor official capacities." Dkt. No. 41, p. 7. The Court adopts this recommendation having found no clear error in the recommended dismissal of the claims against these defendants in their individual and official capacities, particularly where, as here, defendant Marcy Correctional Facility "is the real party in interest." Alster v. Goord, 745 F.Supp.2d 317, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (explaining that "[w]here, as here, a plaintiff may proceed on his ADA claims against the State entity directly, courts in this Circuit dismiss the official capacity claims because they are redundant of the claims against the government entity.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Scis. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 280 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2001) (the ADA does not provide for individual capacity suits against state or city officials).

B. Marcy Correctional Facility

Magistrate Judge Treece recommended dismissing plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against defendant Marcy Correctional Facility on the basis that he failed to plead a prima facie case. Dkt. No. 41, p. 7. In reaching this conclusion, Magistrate Judge Treece discussed plaintiff's claim as follows:

Plaintiff may be a qualified individual with a disability as he suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder and debilitating epileptic seizures, but his Amended Complaint is otherwise devoid of any facts that would indicate he was excluded from Marcy's programs or services due to discrimination based on his disability. Instead, Plaintiff provides the Court with threadbare recitals of an ADA claim. For instance, he claims "I was one of the highest paid individuals in the facility. At the point I was told by the doctors that because ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.