Nevares v. Quiinta et al, No. 9:2015cv00383 - Document 25 (N.D.N.Y 2016)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (Dkt. No. 20 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendant and close this action. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/17/16.{order served via regular mail on plaintiff} (nas)

Download PDF
Nevares v. Quiinta et al Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ JULIO NEVARES, Plaintiff, 9:15-CV-0383 (GTS/ATB) v. QUINTA, Correctional Officer, Watertown Correctional Facility, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: JULIO NEVARES Plaintiff, Pro Se c/o Carmen M. Figueroa 4024 Lacomioa Avenue, Apt. 2-A Bronx, New York 10466 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 RYAN E. MANLEY, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this prisoner civil rights action filed pro se by Julio Nevares (“Plaintiff”) against Correctional Officer Quinta at Watertown Correctional Facility (“Defendant”), are Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as a discovery sanction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, and United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s ReportRecommendation recommending that Defendant's motion be granted. (Dkt. Nos. 20, 22.) None of the parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation and the time in which to do Dockets.Justia.com so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough Report-Recommendation, 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 the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (Dkt. No. 20) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendant and close this action. Dated: August 17, 2016 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY Chief United States District Judge 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

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.