Boyd v. Doe #1 et al, No. 9:2018cv01333 - Document 114 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: The Report-Recommendation of Judge Baxter, dkt. # 107 , is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 88 , is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1. The motion is DENIE D with respect to: a. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Baer based on the alleged events that occurred on March 29, 2018; b. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Hunt based on the alleged events that oc curred on April 6, 2018; c. Plaintiff's First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Baer based on the alleged events that occurred on April 17, 2018; d. Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Defendant Young based on the alleg ed events that occurred on April 17, 2018; 2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED in all otherrespects; 3. The Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies with respect to: a. Plaintiff's First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Baer based on the alleged events that occurred on April 17, 2018; and b. Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Defendant Young based on the alleged events that oc curred on April 17, 2018. Plaintiff's motion to amend, dkt. # 104 , is hereby DENIED. Any claims against any remaining unidentified Doe defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to diligently prosecute. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on March 17, 2022. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Download PDF
Boyd v. Doe #1 et al Doc. 114 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ NYJEE L. BOYD, Plaintiff, vs. 9:18-CV-1333 (TJM/ATB) JOHN DOE #1, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER The Court referred this Complaint to Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Plaintif f alleges that Defendants, correction officers and officials at Clinton Correctional Facility, an institution operated by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), violated his constitutional rights in a variety of ways, including by assaulting him and by retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation addresses Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his Complaint.. Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 6, issued on November 30, 2021, recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part and deny that motion in part. Judge Baxter concludes that Plaintiff met the statutory 1 Dockets.Justia.com requirement to exhaust his administrative remedies on some claims and failed to exhaust on others. Summary judgment is appropriate on the unexhausted claims, he finds. Judge Baxter also concludes than an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve whether Plaintiff exhausted a small number of his claims. Judge Baxter further finds that no evidence exists to support some of Plaintiff’s exhausted claims, and recommends summary judgment on them. Judge Baxter also finds that Plaintiff’s attempt to amend his Second Amended Complaint is not timely and futile in any case. He recommends that the Court deny that motion. Finally, Judge Baxter recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining unnamed Doe defendants. Judge Baxter finds that Plaintiff did not diligently pursue their identities and did not seek to include those indiv iduals in a timely fashion. No party objected to the Report-Recommendation. The time for such objections has passed. After examining the record, this Court has determined that the ReportRecommendation 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 Judge Baxter, dkt. # 107, is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 88, is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1. The motion is DENIED with respect to: a. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Baer based on the alleged events that occurred on March 29, 2018; b. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Hunt based on 2 the alleged events that occurred on April 6, 2018; c. Plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Baer based on the alleged events that occurred on April 17, 2018; d. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against Defendant Young based on the alleged events that occurred on April 17, 2018; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED in all other respects; 3. The Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies with respect to: a. Plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Baer based on the alleged events that occurred on April 17, 2018; and b. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against Defendant Young based on the alleged events that occurred on April 17, 2018. Plaintiff’s motion to amend, dkt. # 104, is hereby DENIED. Any claims against any remaining unidentified Doe defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to diligently prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 17, 2022 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.