Williams v. Hesse et al, No. 9:2016cv01343 - Document 66 (N.D.N.Y 2020)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 65 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 40 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance w ith this Decision and Order. All of the claims in Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) are DISMISSED except for his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Hesse and his supervisory liability claim against Defendant Donnelly arisin g from the notary-services incident, which remain pending for trial. Pro Bono Counsel shall be appointed for Plaintiff for purposes of trial only (and not for any appeal) and that, upon assignment of Pro Bono Counsel, a final pretrial conference with counsel be scheduled, at which counsel shall appear with settlement authority from the parties. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/26/2020. (Copy served upon Plaintiff via regular mail). (sal )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Hesse et al Doc. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ WONDER WILLIAMS Plaintiff, 9:16-CV-1343 (GTS/TWD) v. KEVIN HESSE, Corr. Officer, Auburn Corr. Fac.; BRIAN CHUTTEY, Captain, Auburn Corr. Fac.; HAROLD GRAHAM, Super., Auburn Corr. Fac.; ROBINSON, First Deputy, Auburn Corr. Fac.; DONNELLY, Sgt., Auburn Corr. Fac.; FAGAN, Deputy Super., Southport Corr. Fac.; and QUINN, Lieut., Auburn Corr. Fac., Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: WONDER WILLIAMS, 10-A-0102 Plaintiff, Pro Se Sullivan Correctional Facility Box 116 Fallsburg, New York 12733 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 JORGE A. RODRIGUEZ, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Wonder Williams (“Plaintiff”) against the seven above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”), are Defendants’ motion Dockets.Justia.com for summary judgment, and United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ ReportRecommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in part such that all of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed except for his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Hesse and his supervisory-liability claim against Defendant Donnelly arising from the notary-services incident, which should remain pending for trial. (Dkt. Nos. 40, 65.) Neither party has filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part such that all of Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed except for his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Hesse and his supervisory-liability claim against Defendant Donnelly arising from the notary-services incident, which shall remain pending for trial. ACCORDINGLY, it is 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 Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 65) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 40) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with this Decision and Order; and it is further ORDERED that all of the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) are DISMISSED except for his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Hesse and his supervisoryliability claim against Defendant Donnelly arising from the notary-services incident, which remain pending for trial; and it is further ORDERED that Pro Bono Counsel be appointed for Plaintiff for purposes of trial only (and not for any appeal) and that, upon assignment of Pro Bono Counsel, a final pretrial conference with counsel be scheduled, at which counsel shall appear with settlement authority from the parties. Dated: March 26, 2020 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.
