Blount v. Williams et al, No. 5:2022cv00582 - Document 13 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that the Clerk of Court is directed to AMEND the docket sheet in accordance with note 1 of this Decision and Order (to change the name of Defendant "Dobev" to Defendant "Dober"). Magistrate Judge Dancks' R eport-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's grievance-procedure claim asserted against Defendant Dober is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). Defendants Campan eo, Sullivan, Apples, Passino, McDonald, and Peterson are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's First Amendment remaining claims (i.e., his retaliation claims against Defendants Daughton, Williams, and Arsenault) SURVIVE the Court's sua sponte review. T he Clerk of Court is directed to issue a Summons, along with a copy of the Complaint, to the U.S. Marshal for service upon Defendants Daughton, Williams, and Arsenault; and those Defendants are directed to respond in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/4/2022. (Copy served upon plaintiff at last known address via regular mail) (sal)

Download PDF

Blount v. Williams et al Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________ SAYVION D. BLOUNT, Plaintiff, 5:22-CV-0582 (GTS/TWD) v. K. WILLIAMS, Sgt., Onondaga Cty. Sheriff’s Deputy; CAMPANEO, Onondaga Cty. Sheriff’s Deputy; SULLIVAN, Onondaga Cty. Sheriff’s Deputy; DAUGHTON, Onondaga Cty. Sheriff’s Deputy; APPLES, Onondaga Cty. Sheriff’s Deputy; PASSINO, Onondaga Cty. Sheriff’s Deputy; McDONALD, Onondaga Cty. Sheriff’s Deputy; ARSENAULT, Onondaga Cty. Sheriff’s Deputy; DOBEV, Onondaga Cty. Sheriff’s Deputy;1 and PETERSON, Sgt., Onondaga Cty. Sheriff’s Deputy, Defendants. ________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: SAYVION D. BLOUNT Plaintiff, Pro Se Rescue Mission–Kiesewetter 122 Dickerson Street Syracuse, New York 13202 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Sayvion D. Blount (“Plaintiff”) against the ten above-captioned employees of the Onondaga County Sheriff’s Office 1 The Court notes that, although the docket sheet currently lists the last name of this Defendant as “Dobev,” Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to list it as “Dober” (Dkt. No. 1, at 3, 15), and both the Report-Recommendation and the decision attached to it list it as “Dober” (Dkt. No. 8, at 3, 6-7, 10-12 and Attachment). As a result, the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the docket sheet accordingly. Dockets.Justia.com (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ ReportRecommendation recommending as follows: that Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims be permitted to proceed for now against Defendants Daughton, Williams, and Arsenault; that Plaintiff’s grievance-procedure claim asserted against Defendant Dober be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and that Plaintiff’s remaining claims against all the other Defendants also be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 8.) 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.2 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. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to AMEND the docket sheet in accordance with note 1 of this Decision and Order (to change the name of Defendant “Dobev” to Defendant “Dober”); and it is further 2 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 ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s grievance-procedure claim asserted against Defendant Dober is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) and it is further ORDERED that Defendants Campaneo, Sullivan, Apples, Passino, McDonald, and Peterson are DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amendment remaining claims (i.e., his retaliation claims against Defendants Daughton, Williams, and Arsenault) SURVIVE the Court’s sua sponte review; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to issue a Summons, along with a copy of the Complaint, to the U.S. Marshal for service upon Defendants Daughton, Williams, and Arsenault; and those Defendants are directed to respond in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dated: August 4, 2022 Syracuse, New York _____________________________ 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.