Williams v. Novak et al, No. 9:2016cv01211 - Document 75 (N.D.N.Y 2018)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 72 Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report and Recommendation in its entirety; granting in part and denying in part # 39 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in accordance with the Report and Recomme ndation. All of the claims in Plaintiff's complaint are dismissed EXCEPT for the following claims which SURVIVE Defendants' motion and REMAIN PENDING for trial: (1) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against D efendants Novak and Donnelly related to cell I-3; (2) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendant Novak other than his retaliation claim against Defendant Novak related to his being moved to, and kept in, cell I-3; and (3) Plaintiff's supervisory liability claim against Defendant Graham related to his underlying Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. Pro Bono Counsel is directed to be appointed for the Plaintiff for purposes of trial only; any appeal sh all remain the responsibility of the plaintiff alone unless a motion for appointment of counsel for an appeal is granted; and that upon assignment of Pro Bono Counsel, a pretrial conference with counsel only will be scheduled in this action, at which time the Court will schedule this case for trial. The parties are directed to appear at that pretrial conference with settlement authority. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/12/18. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Novak et al Doc. 75 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________________ WONDER WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MRS. NOVAK, Representative of Estate of Corr. Officer Novak; HAROLD GRAHAM, Superintendent, Auburn Corr. Facility; ROBINSON, First Deputy (formerly Deputy of Sec.), Auburn Corr. Facility; BRIAN CHUTTEY, Captain/Deputy Superintendent, Auburn Corr. Facility; QUINN, Lieutenant, Auburn Corr. Facility; FAGAN, Captain/Deputy Superintendent, Auburn Corr. Facility; DONNELLY, Sergeant, Auburn Corr. Facility; and ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Comm’r, NYS DOCCS, 9:16-CV-1211 (GTS/TWD) Defendants. _______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: WONDER WILLIAMS, 10-A-0102 Plaintiff, Pro Se Five Points Correctional Facility Caller Box 119 Romulus, NY 14541 HON. BARBARA UNDERWOOD Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 AIMEE M. PAQUETTE, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in his pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Wonder Williams (“Plaintiff”) against the eight above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”), is the Report- Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. No. 72.) The parties have not filed Objections to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing all of the papers in this action, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in that ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 72.) As a result, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. (Id.) ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 72) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with the Report-Recommendation; and it is further 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 ORDERED that all of the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) are DISMISSED EXCEPT for the following claims, which SURVIVE Defendants’ motion and REMAIN PENDING for trial: (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Defendants Novak and Donnelly related to cell I-3; (2) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendant Novak other than his retaliation claim against Defendant Novak related to his being moved to, and kept in, cell I-3; and (3) Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claim against Defendant Graham related to his underlying Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim; and it is further ORDERED that Pro Bono Counsel be appointed for the Plaintiff for purposes of trial only; any appeal shall remain the responsibility of the plaintiff alone unless a motion for appointment of counsel for an appeal is granted; and it is further ORDERED that upon assignment of Pro Bono Counsel, a pretrial conference with counsel only will be scheduled in this action, at which time the Court will schedule this case for trial. The parties are directed to appear at that pretrial conference with settlement authority. Dated: September 12, 2018 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY Chief United States District Judge 3
]]>
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.
