Peterson v. Lindstrand et al, No. 9:2019cv00569 - Document 73 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 72 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 56 ) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. N o. 1 ) is DISMISSED. Any undecided requests set forth in Plaintiff's letter-motion of December 27, 2021 (Dkt. No. 64 ) are DENIED as moot. The Court certifies that any appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/8/2022. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal )

Download PDF
Peterson v. Lindstrand et al Doc. 73 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ DAVID PETERSON, Plaintiff, 9:19-CV-0569 (GTS/DJS) v. J. LINDSTRAND, Dep. Super. for Administration, Great Meadow Corr. Fac.; J. CORLEW, Offender Rehab. Coord., Great Meadow Corr. Fac.; C. MILLER, Super., Great Meadow Corr. Fac.; and DONALD VENETTOZZI, Dir. of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Great Meadow Corr. Fac., Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: DAVID PETERSON, 01-A-6826 Plaintiff, Pro Se Shawangunk Correctional Facility P.O. Box 700 Wallkill, New York 12589 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 DAVID C. WHITE, 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 David Peterson (“Plaintiff”) against the four above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § Dockets.Justia.com 1983, is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 72) recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in its entirety and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 56, 72.) No 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 Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Stewart 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 for summary judgment is granted, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 72) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 56) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that any undecided requests set forth in Plaintiff’s letter-motion of December 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 27, 2021 (Dkt. No. 64) are DENIED as moot. The Court certifies that any appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in good faith. Dated: March 8, 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.