Sanders v. Torres et al, No. 9:2019cv00697 - Document 30 (N.D.N.Y 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 29 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19 ) is GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complai nt (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/2/2021. (Copy served upon Plaintiff via regular mail) (sal)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sanders v. Torres et al Doc. 30 Case 9:19-cv-00697-GTS-CFH Document 30 Filed 03/02/21 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ ANTHONY SANDERS, Plaintiff, 9:19-CV-0697 (GTS/CFH) v. W. TORRES, C.O. Auburn Corr. Fac.; E. SADOWSKI, C.O. Auburn Corr. Fac.; N. GRZESKOWIAK, C.O. Auburn Corr. Fac.; and S. SKELLY, C.O. Auburn Corr. Fac., Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: ANTHONY SANDERS, 17-A-5184 Plaintiff, Pro Se Elmira Correctional Facility P.O. Box 500 Elmira, New York 14902 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants 300 South State Street Syracuse, New York 13202 AIMEE COWAN, 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 Anthony Sanders (“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. § 1983, are (1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:19-cv-00697-GTS-CFH Document 30 Filed 03/02/21 Page 2 of 3 granted in its entirety, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 29.) Neither 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 Hummel’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation. 1 Magistrate Judge Hummel 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 in its entirety, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 29) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in 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-00697-GTS-CFH Document 30 Filed 03/02/21 Page 3 of 3 good faith. Dated: March 2, 2021 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.
