Williams v. Auburn Correctional Facility, et al, No. 9:2014cv00437 - Document 30 (N.D.N.Y 2015)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Court ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation and Order [dkt. # 29 ] for the reasons stated therein. Defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. # 27 ] on Plaintiff's amended complaint [dkt. # 10] is GRAN TED and Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 12/21/15. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

Download PDF
Williams v. Auburn Correctional Facility, et al Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ KAYLIN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. No. 9:14-CV-437 (TJM/CFH) PAUL W. CHAPPIUS, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility, 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 to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). No objections to Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation and Order [dkt. # 29] have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. II. DISCUSSION After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report- Recommendation and Order is not subject to attack f or plain error or manifest injustice. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation and Order [dkt. # 29] 1 Dockets.Justia.com for the reasons stated therein. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt. # 27] on Plaintiff’s amended complaint [dkt. # 10] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:December 21, 2015 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.