Gillespie v. New York State Department of Correctional Services et al, No. 9:2008cv01339 - Document 32 (N.D.N.Y 2010)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER adopting the 29 Report and Recommendations and dismissing the complaint. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 3/19/2010. (amt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ ANTHONY GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, vs. 9:08-CV-1339 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, ET AL, Defendants. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER This pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). The Report-Recommendation dated February 22, 2010 recommended that Plaintiff s Complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff did not timely file objections to the ReportRecommendation. On or before the time for filing objections, Plaintiff requested a sixty day extension of time within which to file objections. In his request, Plaintiff did not specify any reasons for the extension. Because no reasons were given, the Court found that Plaintiff did not establish good cause for the extension as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. The Court, nevertheless, determined to treat Plaintiff s request for an extension of time as a general objection and, thus, to conduct a de novo review of the 1 motion to dismiss. After a de novo review, 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. Id. Having reviewed the record de novo, the Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation for the reasons stated therein. For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Complaint be DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 19, 2010 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.