Miller v. Annucci et al, No. 9:2017cv00369 - Document 53 (N.D.N.Y 2019)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 52 Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report and Recommendation in its entirety; and granting # 42 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 5/8/19. (lmw) (Copy served upon Pro se plaintiff via regular mail)

Download PDF
Miller v. Annucci et al Doc. 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ OSCAR MILLER, Plaintiff, 9:17-CV-0369 (GTS/DJS) v. ANTHONY ANNUCCI, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: OSCAR MILLER, 10-A-3376 Plaintiff, Pro Se Washington Correctional Facility Box 180 72 Lock 11 Lane Comstock, New York 12821 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendant The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 KEITH J. STARLIN, 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 Oscar Miller (“Plaintiff”) against Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendant”) seeking a Court order directing Defendant to produce documentary evidence in order to determine whether Plaintiff may be able to challenge his sentence, is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s ReportRecommendation recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted Dockets.Justia.com based on the fact that Defendant has provided Plaintiff with the requested documents and therefore Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is now moot. (Dkt. No. 52.) The parties have not filed objections 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 Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 52.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s motion is granted, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 42) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 6) is DISMISSED. Dated: May 8, 2019 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby Chief U.S. District Judge 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

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.