Nelson v. Plumley et al, No. 9:2012cv00422 - Document 90 (N.D.N.Y 2015)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Defendants' objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 85 , are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 83 , is hereby ADOPTED, and the Court finds that t he Plaintiff's excessive force claim is not barred by the PLRA based upon Plaintiff's exhaustion of available administrative remedies before commencing suit; and the Court will set the matter down for trial by separate order. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 7/14/15. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Nelson v. Plumley et al Doc. 90 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ JEFFREY A. NELSON, Plaintiff, vs. 9:12-CV-422 BRUCE PLUMLEY, et al., Defendants. _______________________________________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, United States District Judge DECISION & ORDER This civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleges violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as a New York State prison inmate. The action was referred to the Hon. David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Af ter previous motion practice, the Plaintiff’s remaining claim is an excessive force claim against Defendants Berggren and Galani. The Report-Recommendation, dated May 14, 2015, recommended that the Court find that Plaintiff’s claims are not barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the matter be set down for trial. See dkt. # 83. 1 Dockets.Justia.com The Defendants filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation.1 When objections to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the Defendants’ objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles for the reasons stated in the ReportRecommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants’ objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Jude Peebles, dkt. # 85, are hereby OVERRULED. The ReportRecommendation, dkt. # 83, is hereby ADOPTED, and: 1. The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s excessive force claim is not barred by the PLRA based upon Plaintiff’s exhaustion of available administrative remedies before commencing suit; and 1 Plaintiff filed a document pro se he styles as “objections” to the ReportRecommendation. In that document, however, Plaintiff asks the Court to adopt the Report-Recommendation. See dkt. # 84. Moreover, Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the evidentiary hearing on the failure-to-exhaust issue, and counsel filed a brief in opposition to Defendants’ objections to the Report-Recommendaiton. See dkt. #89. These filings make clear that Defendants’ are the only actual objections to the ReportRecommendation. 2 2. The Court will set the matter down for trial by separate order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:July 14, 2015 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
