Parks v. Smith et al, No. 9:2008cv00586 - Document 59 (N.D.N.Y 2011)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Lowe's 57 Report and Recommendations; granting Defendants' 51 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the Plaintiff's remaining claims. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/9/2011. (amt) [Pltf served via reg. mail]

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ JOSEPH PARKS, Plaintiff, 9:08-CV-0586 (TJM/GHL) v. JOSEPH T. SMITH, et al., Defendants. _________________________________________ THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge DECISION & ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred by this Court to the Hon. George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule N.D.N.Y. 72.3(c). In his March 29, 2011 Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lowe recommended that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 51) be granted. Plaintiff has filed objections to this recommendation. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are lodged, the district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. See 28 1 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). General or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same arguments presented to the magistrate judge, are reviewed for clear error. Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see Frankel v. N.Y.C., 2009 WL 465645 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2009).1 After reviewing the ReportRecommendation, the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). III. DISCUSSION Having reviewed de novo those portions of the Report-Recommendation that Plaintiff has lodged objections to, the Court determines to adopt the recommendations for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Lowe s thorough report. IV. CONCLUSION Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the recommendations made by Magistrate Judge Lowe in their entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 51) is GRANTED and the remaining claims in this action are 1 The Southern District wrote in Frankel: The Court m ust m ake a de novo determ ination to the extent that a party m akes specific objections to a m agistrate's findings. United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.1997). W hen a party m akes only conclusory or general objections, or sim ply reiterates the original argum ents, the Court will review the report strictly for clear error. See Pearson-Fraser v. Bell Atl., No. 01 Civ. 2343, 2003 W L 43367, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2003); Cam ardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Em ployees Pension Plan, 806 F.Supp. 380, 382 (W .D.N.Y.1992). Sim ilarly, objections that are m erely perfunctory responses argued in an attem pt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the sam e argum ents set forth in the original [papers] will not suffice to invoke de novo review. Vega v. Artuz, No. 97 Civ. 3775, 2002 W L 31174466, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002). 2009 W L 465645, at *2. 2 DISMISSED. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment and close the file in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated:September 9, 2011 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.