Edwards v. Bezio et al, No. 9:2008cv00256 - Document 47 (N.D.N.Y 2010)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 45 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 36 ) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against LaPage and Bezio are DISMISSED; ORDERED, that Plaintiff's claims against LaFey are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 2/24/10. (order served on plaintiff by regular mail) (mnc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARK EDWARDS, Plaintiff, -against- 9:08-CV-256 (LEK/RFT) SGT. BEZIO, C.O. LaPAGE, C.O. LaFEY, C.O. CARRONS, C.O. REIF, all individually and in their official capacities, Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on February 5, 2010 by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 45). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Plaintiff Mark Edwards, which were filed on February 19, 2010. Objections (Dkt. No. 46). It is the duty of this Court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). A [district] judge... may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein. 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 45) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 36) is GRANTED and Plaintiff s claims against LaPage and Bezio are DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Plaintiff s claims against LaFey are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 24, 2010 Albany, 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.