Stephanski v. Artus et al, No. 9:2016cv01155 - Document 30 (N.D.N.Y 2017)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: Based upon a de novo review of the 29 Report-Recommendation, the Report- Recommendation is accepted in whole. ORDERED that 1. Defendants' 25 motion to dismiss is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's 27 motion to amend is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety; and 4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/21/17. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

Download PDF
Stephanski v. Artus et al Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------PAUL STEPHANSKI, Plaintiff, -v- 9:16-CV-1155 (DNH/DJS) DALE ARTUS, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility; CAPT. STEVEN RACETTE, Dept of Security, Clinton Correctional Facility; STEPHEN LACY, Captain, Clinton Correctional Facility; and RAYMOND FURNIA, Sargent, Clinton Correctional Facility, Defendants. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: PAUL STEPHANSKI Plaintiff pro se 99-B-2439 Mid-State Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2500 Marcy, NY 13403 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Attorney for Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 COLLEEN D. GALLIGAN, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Paul Stephanski brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 11, 2017, the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendants' motion to dismiss be granted, Dockets.Justia.com plaintiff's motion to amend be denied, and that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed. Based upon a de novo review of the Report-Recommendation, the ReportRecommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's motion to amend is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety; and 4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 21, 2017 Utica, New York. -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.