Cantey v. Martuscello, No. 9:2016cv01008 - Document 22 (N.D.N.Y 2017)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER: The Report-Recommendation, Dkt. # 18 , is hereby ADOPTED, and: 1. Defendant's motion to dismiss, dkt. # 14 , is hereby GRANTED; and 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 7/26/17. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cantey v. Martuscello Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ ANDRE CANTEY, Plaintiff, vs. 9:16-CV-1008 (TJM/CFH) DANIEL F. MARUSCELLO, Superintendent, Coxsackie Correctional Facility, Defendant. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER This pro se civil action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging violations of Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when Defendant deprived him of access to hot water for showering in prison, was referred to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). The Report-Recommendation, dated June 8, 2017, recom mends that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted. See dkt. # 18. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim that prison conditions violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. See dkt. # 21. W hen objections to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a 1 Dockets.Justia.com “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 having considered the issues raised in the Plaintiff’s objections, the Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel, Dkt. # 21, are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, Dkt. # 18, is hereby ADOPTED, and: 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, dkt. # 14, is hereby GRANTED; and 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 26, 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.
