Hawthorne v. Ruecker et al, No. 1:2017cv00716 - Document 14 (N.D.N.Y 2017)
Court Description: DECISION and ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 13 Report and Recommendations. ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant City of Albany are DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the following claims REMAIN PENDING:(1)Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable search and seizure asserted against Defendants Anderson a nd Perkins; (2) Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest asserted against Defendants Anderson, Perkins, Ruecker, Norris, Cheban and Christ;(3) Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force asserted against Defendants Anderson and P erkins;(4) Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution asserted against Defendants Anderson, Perkins, Ruecker, Norris, and Cheban; and (5) Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment claim for violation of due process (arising from the deprivation of property) asserted against Defendants Anderson, Perkins and Christ. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 12/19/2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(khr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hawthorne v. Ruecker et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___________________________________________ DARRYL L. HAWTHORNE, Plaintiff, 1:17-CV-0716 (GTS/TWD) v. TYSON RUECKER, Albany Police Officer, in His Individual and Official Capacity; DEVIN ANDERSON, Albany Police Officer, in His Individual and Official Capacity; SEAN PERKINS, Albany Police Officer, in His Individual and Official Capacity; ALEX CHEBAN, Albany Police Officer, in His Individual and Official Capacity; JOHN NORRIS, Albany Police Officer, in His Individual and Official Capacity; SERGEANT CHRIST, Albany Police Dept.; and CITY OF ALBANY, NY, Defendants. ___________________________________________ APPEARANCES: DARRYL L. HAWTHORNE Plaintiff, Pro Se 40 Anne Street New York, New York 10038 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Darryl L. Hawthorne (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned police officers of the City of Albany and the City of Albany, New York (“Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against the City of Albany be dismissed, and that the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims remain pending. Dockets.Justia.com (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, and Plaintiff’s claims against the City of Albany are dismissed and Plaintiff’s other claims remain pending. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant City of Albany are DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the following claims REMAIN PENDING: (1) Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable search and seizure asserted against Defendants Anderson and Perkins; (2) Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest asserted against Defendants 1 When 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 omitted). 2 Anderson, Perkins, Ruecker, Norris, Cheban and Christ; (3) Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force asserted against Defendants Anderson and Perkins; (4) Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution asserted against Defendants Anderson, Perkins, Ruecker, Norris, and Cheban; and (5) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim for violation of due process (arising from the deprivation of property) asserted against Defendants Anderson, Perkins and Christ; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to issue Summonses and forward them, along with copies of the Amended Complaint, to the U.S. Marshal for service upon Defendants Anderson, Perkins, Ruecker, Norris, Cheban, and Christ, and Defendants are directed to respond in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dated: December 19, 2017 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY Chief 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.
