Chaney v. Trachtenberg et al, No. 9:2015cv00653 - Document 81 (N.D.N.Y 2017)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52 ) in its entirety. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed on behalf of defendants Vena and Bell ( Dkt. No. 41 ), is DENIED. Further, plaintiff is given another thirty (30) days to serve defendant Bell, and defense counsel is directed to either (1) provide to plaintiff within five (5) business days of this Decision and Order defendant Bell' ;s current or last-known address so that the Marshal may serve the defendant, or (2) indicate to plaintiff within five (5) business days of this Decision and Order that counsel will accept service on defendant Bell's behalf. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/20/17. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Download PDF
Chaney v. Trachtenberg et al Doc. 81 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ NAKIA CHANEY, Plaintiff, v. 9:15-CV-653 (TJM/ATB) GREGORY M. VENA, 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. Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). In his Report-Recom mendation (Dkt. No. 52), Magistrate Judge Baxter recommends that Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed on behalf of defendants Vena and Bell (Dkt. No. 41), be denied, that plaintiff be given another thirty (30) days to serve defendant Bell, and that defense counsel be directed to either provide defendant Bell’s current or last-known address so that the Marshal may serve the defendant or be prepared to accept service on his behalf. Defendants filed objections to the recommendations. Dkt. No. 54. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are lodged, 1 Dockets.Justia.com the district 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); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997) (The Court must make a de novo determination to the extent that a party makes specific objections to a magistrate’s findings.). III. DISCUSSION Having considered Defendants’ objections and having completed a de novo review of the issues raised by the objections, the Court has determined to adopt Magistrate Judge Baxter’s recommendations for the reasons stated in his thorough report. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52) in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed on behalf of defendants Vena and Bell (Dkt. No. 41), is DENIED. Further, plaintiff is given another thirty (30) days to serve defendant Bell, and defense counsel is directed to either (1) provide to plaintiff within five (5) business days of this Decision and Order defendant Bell’s current or last-known address so that the Marshal may serve the defendant, or (2) indicate to plaintiff within five (5) business days of this Decision and Order that counsel will accept service on defendant Bell’s behalf. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:September 20, 2017 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.