Harvey v. Harder, No. 9:2009cv00154 - Document 53 (N.D.N.Y 2012)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: The 51 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted. ORDERED that 47 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be DISMISSED. ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to amend his amended complaint to remove defendant Jon Gillette and add defendant Edward Cermak is DENIED as moot. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/17/12. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ GREGORY HARVEY, Plaintiff, vs. 9:09-CV-154 DAVID HARDER, 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 July 31, 2012 recommended that: (1) Defendants motion for summary judgment be granted, and Plaintiff s amended complaint be dismissed on its merits in its entirety against all Defendants; and (2) Plaintiff s request to amend his amended complaint to remove defendant Jon Gillette and add defendant Edward Cermak be denied as moot. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the ReportRecommendation, essentially raising the same arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge. 1 When objections to a magistrate judge s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 636(b)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § After such a 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 and having considered the issues raised in the Plaintiff s objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, and Plaintiff s Amended Complaint be DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff s request to amend his amended complaint to remove defendant Jon Gillette and add defendant Edward Cermak is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:September 17, 2012 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.
