Girard v. Chuttey et al, No. 9:2015cv00187 - Document 255 (N.D.N.Y 2018)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stewart, dkt. # 247 , is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff's objections, dkt. #s 252, 254, are hereby OVERRULED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 213 , is hereby GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 8/31/18. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Girard v. Chuttey et al Doc. 255 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ CHAUNCEY GIRARD, Plaintiff, vs. 9:15-CV-187 (TJM/DJS) BRIAN CHUTTEY, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER The Court referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, which alleges violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights during his incarceration, to the Hon. Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). The August 10, 2018, Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 247, recommends that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. Magistrate Judge Stewart finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on all claims except his due process claim. Magistrate Judge Stewart also concludes that summary judgment is appropriate on the substantive elements of that claim, as well as the other claims for which Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation.1 When objections to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are filed, the Court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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 considered the issues raised in the Plaintiff’s objections, the Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stewart for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation. Accordingly, The Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stewart, dkt. # 247, is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s objections, dkt. #s 252, 254, are hereby OVERRULED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 213, is hereby GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. 1 Plaintiff filed two documents with the Court, both of which he titled as “appeals” to the Magistrate Judge’s decision. See dkt. #s 252, 254. The second document contains the same argument but additional documents. Both dispute Magistrate Judge Stewart’s conclusions about the evidence in the case. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has determined to treat the filings as objections to the Report-Recommendation. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 31, 2018 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.
