Lovell v. Annucci et al, No. 9:2018cv00685 - Document 39 (N.D.N.Y 2020)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel, dkt. # 38 , is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 32 , is hereby GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 8/21/2020. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lovell v. Annucci et al Doc. 39 Case 9:18-cv-00685-TJM-CFH Document 39 Filed 08/24/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ GILFORD LOVELL, Plaintiff, vs. 9:18-CV-685 (TJM/DJS) BRIAN F. MCAULIFFE, Superintendent, Riverview Correctional Facility, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER The Court referred this pro se civil action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, Corrections Officers and officials at a New York Correctional Facility, violated his rights by forcing him to cut dreadlocks in his beard, which violated his Rastafarian religious beliefs. Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 38, issued on July 14, 2020, recommends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. Magistrate Judge Hummel finds that, even if Plaintiff could establish that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by forcing him to cut the dreadlocks in his beard, the right to grow facial hair that conforms to a prisoner’s religious beliefs was not firmly established, and qualified immunity therefore applies. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:18-cv-00685-TJM-CFH Document 39 Filed 08/24/20 Page 2 of 2 Plaintiff did not object to the Report-Recommendation, and the time for such objections has passed. After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice and the Court will accept and adopt the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, The Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel, dkt. # 38, is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 32, is hereby GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 21, 2020 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.
