Perez v. Amato et al, No. 9:2012cv00623 - Document 27 (N.D.N.Y 2013)

Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that 26 Report and Recommendation is adopted. ORDERED that 19 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment mail tampering and slander claims. Accordingly, those claims and are DISMISSED. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 7/16/13. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Download PDF
Perez v. Amato et al Doc. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------JOSE A. PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. 9:12-CV-623 MICHAEL J. AMATO, Sheriff; MICHAEL FRANKO, Jail Administrator Defendants. -------------------------------THOMAS J. McAVOY United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER This matter brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). In the Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended that Defendants motion to dismiss be granted with respect to Plaintiff s First Amendment mail tampering claim and the state-law slander claims and denied in all other respects. No objections to the June 13, 2013 Report-Recommendation have been raised. After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff s Dockets.Justia.com First Amendment mail tampering and slander claims. Accordingly, those claims and are DISMISSED. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 17, 2013 -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.