Barzee v. Tyler et al, No. 8:2021cv00902 - Document 20 (N.D.N.Y 2022)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED, such that (1) his claims against Defendants Stephen J. Dougherty and Bonnie A. Buccina are DISMISSED with prejudice, and (2) his remaining claims, against Defendant Kenneth H. Tyler, are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/9/2022. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Barzee v. Tyler et al Doc. 20 Case 8:21-cv-00902-GTS-CFH Document 20 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ SAIO BARZEE, Plaintiff, 8:21-CV-0902 (GTS/CFH) v. KENNETH H. TYLER, A.D.A.; BONNIE A. BUCCINA, Law Clerk; STEPHEN J. DOUGHERTY, Onondaga County Court Judge, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: SAIO BARZEE, 13-B-1933 Plaintiff, Pro Se Upstate Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2001 Malone, New York 12953 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Saio Barzee (“Plaintiff”) against Onondaga County Court Judge Stephen J. Dougherty, Law Clerk Bonnie A. Buccina, and Assistant District Attorney Kenneth H. Tyler (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants Dougherty and Buccina be dismissed with prejudice under the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity, and that his Complaint against Defendant Tyler be dismissed without prejudice under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to Dockets.Justia.com Case 8:21-cv-00902-GTS-CFH Document 20 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 3 do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Hummel’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Hummel 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 Complaint against Defendants Dougherty and Buccina is dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant Tyler is dismissed without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED, such that (1) his claims against Defendants Stephen J. Dougherty and Bonnie A. Buccina are DISMISSED with prejudice, and (2) his remaining claims, against Defendant Kenneth H. Tyler, are DISMISSED without prejudice The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in 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 Case 8:21-cv-00902-GTS-CFH Document 20 Filed 06/09/22 Page 3 of 3 good faith. Dated: June 9, 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.
