Chaney v. Trachtenberg et al, No. 9:2015cv00653 - Document 94 (N.D.N.Y 2017)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Court ACCEPTS the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 92 ) for the reasons stated therein. Defendant D'Agostino's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 64 ) is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety as against defendant D'Agostino. Further, defendant D'Agostino's motion for summary judgment as relates to cross-claims filed by defendants Vena and Bell (Dkt. No. 64 ) is GRANTED, and any such cross-claims are DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 12/28/17. {order served via regular mail and via certified mail on plaintiff}(nas, )
Download PDF
Chaney v. Trachtenberg et al Doc. 94 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 dated November 29, 2017 (Dkt. No. 92), Magistrate Judge Baxter recommends: (1) that defendant D’Agostino’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 64) be granted, and the complaint dismissed in its entirety as against defendant D’Agostino based on a lack of personal involvement, and (2) that defendant D’Agostino’s motion for summary judgment as relates to cross-claims filed by defendants Vena and Bell (Dkt. No. 64) be granted, and any such cross-claims be dismissed. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. 1 Dockets.Justia.com II. DISCUSSION After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report- Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 92) for the reasons stated therein. Defendant D’Agostino’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 64) is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety as against defendant D’Agostino. Further, defendant D’Agostino’s motion for summary judgment as relates to cross-claims filed by defendants Vena and Bell (Dkt. No. 64) is GRANTED, and any such cross-claims are DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:December 28, 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.