Guillory v. Boll et al, No. 1:2013cv00124 - Document 44 (W.D.N.Y. 2014)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER ACCEPTING Judge Foschio's 38 Report and Recommendation; DENYING Plaintiff's 40 Objections to the Report and the Order; GRANTING Defendant's 12 Motion to Dismiss the Complaint; DISMISSING the Complaint; DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to close this case. Signed by William M. Skretny, Chief Judge on 11/21/2014. (MEAL) - CLERK TO FOLLOW UP -
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Guillory v. Boll et al Doc. 44 UETEITTU NDASSI CR I STDR O T C T WRITTFWK EEDROEO SN I NY T SC R PRGLY AIKI O T UR CL , Ptf, lai in v . DECISION AND ORDER 1C2() 3V4F -- S 1 KHNSU, AL WBN TE A R EH Dnn edt fa e. 1 . P laintiff com enced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U .C § 1983 p r o m .S . s e in D ecem 2012 i n the N ber orthern D stri ct of N Y i ew ork. In February 2013, hi s cl ai m s agai nst t he present Def endant , Kat hl een W ashburn, were t ransf erred t o t hi s Court . D endant m ef oved t o di sm ss the com ai nt for f ai l ure t o st at e a cl ai m on M 24, 2013. i pl ay Irsn,PtfmJe,24fleandmt nps lai odn60,t i am cpn eoe in v u2 1o neeola. e d i 2 . O June 17, 2014, t hi s m t er w ref erred t o t he H n at as onorabl e Lesl i e G . Foschi o, U ted S ni tates M strate Judge, to oversee al l pre-tri al m agi atters and to hear and f i l e a report and recom endat i on cont ai ni ng f i ndi ngs of f act , concl usi ons of l aw and a m recom ended di sposi t i on of any di sposi t i ve m i ons pursuant t o 28 U S. C § 636(b)(1)(B) m ot . . a() nC d. 3 . In a R eport , R ecom endat i on and O m rder dat ed Sept em ber 25, 2014, Judge Foschi o recom ended t hat D endant ’ s m on be granted because Pl ai nti ff fai l ed to state m ef oti a pl ausi bl e deni al of access to court cl ai m or a Fi rst Am endm ent retal i ati on cl ai m . The Dockets.Justia.com M st rat e Judge al so deni ed Pl ai nt i f f ’ s m i on f or l eave t o f i l e an am agi ot ended com ant . pl P ursuant to 28 U .C § 636(b)(1)(C any party m serve and fi l e w tten obj ecti ons to a .S . ), ay ri report and recom endat i on of a m st rat e j udge w thi n fourteen days af t er bei ng served m agi i w th a copy. Local R e of C vi l P i ul i rocedure 72(b) further requi res that w tten obj ecti ons to ri a m strate j udge’ s report “shal l speci fi cal l y i denti fy the porti ons of the proposed fi ndi ngs agi and recom endat i ons t o w ch obj ect i on i s m m hi ade and t he basi s f or each obj ect i on, and shall be supported by legal authority.” A fter d e n o v o review of those portions of the report and recom endat i on t o w ch proper obj ect i ons are m m hi ade, a di st ri ct court “m accept , ay rej ect , or m f y, i n w e or i n part , t he f i ndi ngs or recom endat i ons m odi hol m ade by t he m strate j udge.” S 28 U .C § 636(b)(1)(C U ted S agi ee .S . ); ni tates v. G n, 451 F. S ardi upp. 2d 504, 506 (WD N Y. 2006). Addi t i onal l y, a m st rat e j udge’ s order on a pret ri al m er . . . agi att w thi n hi s or her purvi ew w l l be reconsi dered by the di stri ct j udge onl y w i i hen i t has been establ i shed that i t i s cl earl y erroneous or contrary to l aw . S 28 U .C § 636(b)(1)(A ee .S . ). Pl ai nti ff ti m y fi l ed obj ecti ons to Judge Foschi o’ s R el eport, R ecom endati on, and O m rder on Oe,24 cb90. tr 1 o 4 . Pl ai nt i f f ’ s f i rst obj ect i on i s t hat D endant vi ol at ed Local R e of C vi l ef ul i P rocedure 7(a)(8) because, as he w proceedi ng p r o as se, D efendant w requi red but as fai l ed to provi de hi m as requi red copi es of unpubl i shed deci si ons on w ch she rel i ed. hi A s D endant argues, however, t hose deci si ons were provi ded. (D ef ocket N os. 20, 35-1. ) A though several of those deci si ons w l ere submtted w th D i i efendant’ s repl y papers, P ai nti ff l wueeyfoenptntfleaitolrsn. a bqnardooit o adineoe s sut dapruy i nd a ps s l 2 5. Pl ai nt i f f next argues t hat Judge Foschi o appl i ed t he w rong st andard i n di sm ssi ng hi s ret al i at i on cl ai m i . The Report and Recom endat i on correct l y st at es, m how ever, t hat t he i ssue i s w her D endant ’ s al l eged conduct w d have det erred a het ef oul person of ordi nary f i rm ness f rom f i l i ng a gri evance, not w her Pl ai nt i f f hi m f w het sel as deterred. (D ocket N 38 at 11); see G l l v. P dl ypchak, 389 F.3d 379, 381 (2d C r. 2004); o. i i i D es v. W aw alker, 23 F 489, 493 (2d C 2001) o v e r r u l e d 9 .3d ir. on other grounds, S i erki ew cz v. S w i orem N ., 534 U . 506, 508, 122 S C 992, 152 L. E 2d 1 (2002). a .A .S . t. d. A though the M strate Judge hi ghl i ghts that P ai nti ff hi m f conti nued to fi l e gri evances, l agi l sel thi s C ourt agrees w th Judge Foschi o’ s concl usi on t hat t he retal i ati on al l egati ons i n the i Com ai nt and pr oposed Am pl ended Com ai nt – t he m pl ost speci f i c of whi ch i s t hat D efendant i m properl y w thhel d $5.05 pai d by P ai nti ff for certi fi ed m l servi ce w ch w i l ai hi as later returned to him – are d e m i n i m i s and therefore outside the scope of constitutional ptcneas3.d4-3 reoSD ,2Fa99 ot . ew 93t 2. i e 6. F inally, contrary to P laintiff’s third and final objection, Judge F oschio correctly concl uded t hat because Pl ai nt i f f ’ s pr oposed Am ended Com ai nt woul d not cur e t he pl defects i n the ori gi nal com ai nt as agai nst the onl y currentl y nam D pl ed efendant, granti ng l eave t o f i l e an am ended com ai nt w d essent i al l y com ence an ent i rel y new l aw t . pl oul m sui S S i th v. C ee m adbury B everages, 942 F. S upp. 150, 160 (W .N . 1996), a f f ’ d 116 F. 3d .D .Y 3 466 (2d C r. 1997). i P ai nti ff’ s obj ecti on to the M strate Judge’ s order denyi ng l eave to l agi 1 ansefrdie mit roed e heen. d I T HEREBY I S O RDERED, t hat Judge Foschi o’ s Repor t and Recom endat i on m (oeo8AEE DtN)isCT; c .3 C D k P FU TH R that P ai nti ff’ s O ecti ons to the R R E, l bj eport and the O rder (D ocket N 40) o. aDID r E; eN E FU TH , t hat D endant ’ s M i on t o D sm ss t he C pl ai nt (D R ER ef ot i i om ocket N 12) i s o. GTateolaisisisd REnh mt d s; ADd Cpn m N i e FTRaeleoeotslcstisa. UEt tt C ft C hlohce R ,hh r h u a e s H k r SRR. ODE OD E D:Nm224 a o b10 td v e, 1 e er BloeY u ,No fa wr k //iliaMrty s mkn W .S e WMKT IL MRY L .SE I N A Chief Judge United States District Court 1 The same conclusion is reached whether or not the denial of leave in this case is considered dispositive or non-dispositive. See Rubin v. Valicenti Advisory Servs., 471 F. Supp. 2d 329, 333-34 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (generally, a motion to amend a pleading is non-dispositive); see also Pusey v. Delta Airlines, No. 09-CV-4084 (ENV)(JO), 2011 WL 1215081, *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2011) (a denial of leave to amend based on futility warrants de novo review). 4
]]>
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.
