Booker et al v. Graham et al, No. 9:2013cv01342 - Document 199 (N.D.N.Y 2016)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 194 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 186 ) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling upon the submission of a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 4/19/16.{order served via regular mail on plaintiff} (nas )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Booker et al v. Graham et al Doc. 199 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ AMIN B. BOOKER, a/k/a Amin Booker; PAUL COLON; and LAWRENCE WILSON, Plaintiffs, v. 9:13-CV-1342 (GTS/ATB) HAROLD GRAHAM, Superintendent, Auburn Corr. Facility; JUSTIN THOMAS, Deputy Superintendent of Programs at Auburn Corr. Facility; GRAFTON ROBINSON, Deputy Superintendent of Security at Auburn Corr. Facility; JOHN DOE #1, Corr. Officer, Auburn Corr. Facility; JOHN DOE #2, Corr. Officer, Auburn Corr. Facility; DONNA MARTIN, Food Serv. Admin. at Auburn Corr. Facility; CAPTAIN FAGAN, Auburn Corr. Facility; ARRIA, Corr. Officer, Auburn Corr. Facility; D. CARPENTER, Corr. Officer, Auburn Corr. Facility; GRIFFIN, Corr. Officer, Auburn Corr. Facility; and STEVENS, Corr. Officer, Auburn Corr. Facility, Defendants. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: AMIN B. BOOKER, 98-A-6245 Plaintiff, Pro Se Elmira Correctional Facility Elmira, New York 14902 PAUL COLON, 03-A-5813 Plaintiff, Pro Se Fishkill Correctional Facility Beacon, New York 12508 LAWRENCE WILSON, 88-C-0777 Plaintiff, Pro Se Wende Correctional Facility Alden, New York 14004 Dockets.Justia.com HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 ADRIENNE J. KERWIN, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Amin B. Booker, Paul Colon, and Lawrence Wilson (“Plaintiffs”) against the above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections (“Defendants”) arising from alleged religiousrights violations while Plaintiffs were inmates at Auburn Correctional Facility in Auburn, New York, are Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice to refiling upon the submission of a properly supported motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 186, 194.) None of the parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough ReportRecommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied 1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein; and Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to refiling upon the submission of a properly supported motion for summary judgment. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 194) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 186) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling upon the submission of a properly supported motion for summary judgment Dated: April 19, 2016 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY United States District Judge 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.
