Nova v. Smith et al, No. 9:2019cv00072 - Document 186 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 184 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 156 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (1) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and Section 1981 claims against Defendant Willett are DISMISSED; (2) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force, failure to intervene, and failure to protect claims again st Defendant Woodruff are DISMISSED; (3) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force, failure to intervene, and failure to protect claims against Defendants Smith and Bond related to the incident at 9:50 a.m. on March 1, 2018, are DISMISSED ; (4) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Smith and Bond related to the incident at 12:40 p.m. on March 1, 2018, are DISMISSED; and (5) it is otherwise DENIED. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judg ment (Dkt. No. 177 ) is DENIED. REMAINING FOR TRIAL are the following claims: (1) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendant Willett related to the incidents at 9:50 a.m. and 12:40 p.m. on March 1, 2018; and (2) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure to intervene and failure to protect claims against Defendants Smith and Bond related to the incident at 12:40 p.m. on March 1, 2018. Defendant Woodruff is TERMINATED as a defendant in this matter. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/22/2022. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal)

Download PDF

Nova v. Smith et al Doc. 186 Case 9:19-cv-00072-GTS-TWD Document 186 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________ JULIO NOVA, Plaintiff, 9:19-CV-0072 (GTS/TWD) v. RANDAL SMITH, Sgt., Upstate Corr. Facility; JAMIE WILLETT, Corr. Ofcr., Upstate Corr. Facility; PAUL WOODRUFF, Dept. Super., Upstate Corr. Facility; and RICHARD BOND, Corr. Ofcr., Upstate Corr. Facility, Defendants. ________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: JULIO NOVA, 02-A-2345 Plaintiff, Pro Se Clinton Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2000 Dannemora, New York 12929 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 JOHN F. MOORE, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Julio Nova (“Plaintiff”) against the four above-captioned officers at Upstate Correctional Facility (“Defendants”), are Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ ReportRecommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in part, Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:19-cv-00072-GTS-TWD Document 186 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 3 and that Plaintiff’s cross-motion be denied. (Dkt. Nos. 156, 177, 184.) The parties have not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation and the time in 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 stated therein, Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 184) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 156) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (1) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and Section 1981 claims against Defendant Willett are DISMISSED; 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 Case 9:19-cv-00072-GTS-TWD Document 186 Filed 09/22/22 Page 3 of 3 (2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force, failure to intervene, and failure to protect claims against Defendant Woodruff are DISMISSED; (3) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force, failure to intervene, and failure to protect claims against Defendants Smith and Bond related to the incident at 9:50 a.m. on March 1, 2018, are DISMISSED; (4) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Smith and Bond related to the incident at 12:40 p.m. on March 1, 2018, are DISMISSED; and (5) it is otherwise DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 177) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that REMAINING FOR TRIAL are the following claims: (1) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendant Willett related to the incidents at 9:50 a.m. and 12:40 p.m. on March 1, 2018; and (2) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure to intervene and failure to protect claims against Defendants Smith and Bond related to the incident at 12:40 p.m. on March 1, 2018; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant Woodruff is TERMINATED as a defendant in this matter. Dated: September 22, 2022 Syracuse, New York 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.