Murray v. Waldron et al, No. 9:2013cv00186 - Document 62 (N.D.N.Y 2015)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 60 Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation in its entirety; granting in part # 54 Defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying Defendants' # 54 motion for attorneys' fees; and Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/25/15. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Murray v. Waldron et al Doc. 62 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ ROBERT L. MURRAY, Plaintiff, 9:13-CV-0186 (GTS/TWD) v. S. NEPHEW, RCII (OMH), Clinton Corr. Facility; and G. PROVOST, RCII, Clinton Corr. Facility, Defendants. __________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: ROBERT L. MURRAY Plaintiff, Pro Se 276 East 171st Street, Room 4 Bronx, New York 14057 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 JUSTIN L. ENGEL, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Timothy A. Vail (“Plaintiff”) against two above-captioned New York State correctional employees (“Defendants”), are (1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (2) their motion for attorneys’ fees, and (3) United States Magistrate Judge Therèse Wiley Dancks’ ReportRecommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted, their motion for attorneys’ fees be denied, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos. 54, 60.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has Dockets.Justia.com expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) For the reasons set forth below, the ReportRecommendation is adopted in its entirety, Defendants motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed. Generally, in her Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Dancks made the following determinations: (1) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim should be dismissed because of his failure to adduce admissible record evidence from which a rational fact-finder could find a causal connection between his protected conduct and Defendants’ actions; and (2) Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees should be denied because the fact that Plaintiff’s retaliation claim survive the Court’s thorough initial review shows that the claim was not “clearly meritless.” (Dkt. No. 60, at Part III.) When, as here, no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.: see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Based upon a careful review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. (Dkt. No. 60.) 2 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 60) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 54) is GRANTED in part; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees (Dkt. No. 54) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 5) is DISMISSED in its entirety. Dated: February 25, 2015 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY United States District Judge 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.
