Brown v. Don et al, No. 9:2008cv00209 - Document 38 (N.D.N.Y 2010)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the 34 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. ORDERED, that defendant's 27 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. ORDERED, that the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling. ORDERED, that the Clerk is directed to file judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 3/24/10. (Decision and Order served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------OSMOND K. BROWN, Plaintiff, vs 9:08-CV-209 V. BROWN, Defendant. -----------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: OSMOND K. BROWN Plaintiff, Pro Se 95-B-1958 Marcy Correctional Facility PO Box 3600 Marcy, NY 13403 HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Defendants Department of Law The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 CHARLES J. QUACKENBUSH, ESQ. Asst. Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Plaintiff, Osmond K. Brown, brought this civil rights action in February 2008, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. By Report-Recommendation dated January 19, 2010, the Honorable George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that defendant s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 27) be granted and the complaint be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. The defendant has filed a letter agreeing with the Report-Recommendation, that this action should be dismissed; however, requests that the issue regarding the plaintiff s alleged protected speech be reconsidered. Plaintiff has filed objections to the ReportRecommendation. Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which the parties have objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 1. Defendant s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 27) is GRANTED; 2. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling; and 3. The Clerk is directed to file judgment accordingly and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 24, 2010 Utica, New York. - 2 -
]]>
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.
