Bradshaw v. Burns et al, No. 9:2019cv00931 - Document 35 (N.D.N.Y 2020)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the # 31 Amended Complaint, as modified by this Order, is accepted for filing and is the operative pleading; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall revise the docket to add Corrections Office rs Rella, Toozer, Sweet, Rogers, Lynch, Matlock, Pesek, Witzigman, and Glinton as defendants, and identify the "Doe" defendants individually or by group as follows: (1) Corrections Officers John Doe #1-79; (2) Corrections Officer John Doe #80; (3) Corrections Officer John Doe #81; (4) Corrections Officers John Doe #82-84; (5) Corrections Officers John Doe #85-86; (6) Corrections Sergeants John Doe #1-29; (7) Corrections Sergeants John Doe #30-32; and (8) Corrections Sergeant John Doe #33; and it is further ORDERED that the following claims SURVIVE sua sponte review and require a response: (1) plaintiff's Fourth Amendment unlawful search claim against defendant Creigo; (2) plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions-o f-confinement claims against defendants Burns, Kotory, Russell, Smoyer, Whitman, Huntley, Trotz, Palmer, Jennings, Rella, Toozer, Corrections Officers Doe #1-79, and Corrections Sergeants Doe #1-29 based on interference with his sleep; (3) plaint iff's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against defendants Huntley, Trotz, Sweet, Rogers, Lynch, Corrections Officer Doe #80, and Corrections Sergeants Doe #30-32 based on denying him access to meals between July 27 and August 1, 2019; and (4) plaintiff's First Amendment free-flow-of-mail claims against defendants Smoyer, Glinton, and Corrections Officers Doe #82-84; and it is further ORDERED that all remaining claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and it is further ORDERED that upon receipt from plaintiff of the documents required for service, the Clerk shall issue summonses and forward the m, along with copies of the amended complaint, to the United States Marshal for service on defendants Whitman, Creigo, Palmer, Jennings, Rella, Toozer, Sweet, Rogers, Lynch, and Glinton; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff must continue to tak e reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the "Doe" defendants remaining in this action, and when identified, seek to amend the amended complaint to add the individuals as defendants in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide plaintiff with copies of the unpublished decisions cited herein in accordance with the Second Circuit decision in Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (p er curiam). Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on March 9, 2020. (Attachments: # 1 Case Law, # 2 Case Law, # 3 Case Law, # 4 Case Law, # 5 Case Law, # 6 Case Law, # 7 Case Law, # 8 Case Law, # 9 Case Law, # 10 Case Law, # 11 Ca se Law, # 12 Case Law, # 13 Case Law, # 14 Case Law, # 15 Case Law, # 16 Case Law, # 17 Case Law, # 18 Case Law, # 19 Case Law, # 20 Case Law, # 21 Case Law, # 22 Case Law, # 23 Case Law, # 24 Case Law, # 25 Case Law, # (2 6) Case Law, # 27 Case Law, # 28 Case Law, # 29 Case Law, # 30 Case Law, # 31 Case Law, # 32 Case Law, # 33 Case Law, # 34 Case Law, # 35 Case Law, # 36 Case Law, # 37 Case Law, # 38 Case Law, # 39 Case Law, # 40 Case Law, # 41 Case Law, # 42 Case Law, # 43 Case Law, # 44 Case Law, # 45 Case Law)(Copy served via regular mail)(rep)

Download PDF
Bradshaw v. Burns et al Doc. 35 Att. 6 Crichlow v. Fischer, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2017) 2017 WL 6459512 2017 WL 6459512 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. New York. Kevin Damion CRICHLOW, Plaintiff, v. Brian FISCHER, et al., Defendants. 9:17-cv-00194 (TJM/TWD) | Signed 12/18/2017 Attorneys and Law Firms Kevin Damion Crichlow, Romulus, NY, pro se. Nicole E. Haimson, New York State Attorney General, Albany, NY, for Defendants. Attorney General, Dept. of Law, Albany, NY, pro se. DECISION & ORDER Thomas J. McAvoy, Senior, U.S. District Judge I. INTRODUCTION *1 This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). In her September 5, 2017 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 233), Magistrate Judge Dancks recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment in lieu of an answer (Dkt. No. 177) be granted, and that Plaintiff’s motion for substitution of a party (Dkt. No. 231) be denied as moot. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation and Order. See Obj., Dkt. No. 236. On November 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 238. II. DISCUSSION a. Objections to Report-Recommendation and Order When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are lodged, the district court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997) (The Court must make a de novo determination to the extent that a party makes specific objections to a magistrate’s findings.). After reviewing the report and recommendation, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 636(b). 28 U.S.C. § Having considered Plaintiff’s objections and having completed a de novo review of the issues raised by the objections, the Court has determined to accept Magistrate Judge Dancks’s recommendations for the reasons stated in her thorough report. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment in lieu of an answer (Dkt. No. 177) is granted, and Plaintiff’s motion for substitution of a party (Dkt. No. 231) is denied as moot. b. Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction complains of conduct subsequent to the allegations underlying the claims in this action, see Dkt. No. 238-1, pp. 1-3 (complaining about his medical treatment in October 2017), p. 5 (claiming that he was retaliated against because he filed “grievances ... with DOCS Office of Special Investigations since 2016-2017”), and appears to assert new claims for retaliation and denial of medical care based on this subsequent conduct. See id., pp. 3-5. Plaintiff cannot amend the Amended Complaint by bringing a motion for a preliminary injunction complaining about subsequent conduct. Accordingly, the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice to being asserted in a new action complaining about the conduct underlying the motion. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Dancks’s Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 233) in its entirety. Defendants' motion for summary judgment in lieu of an answer (Dkt. No. 177) is GRANTED, and the action is DISMISSED against all remaining Defendants, including those who have not been specifically identified 1 and/or served. Further, Plaintiff’s motion for substitution of a party (Dkt. No. 231) is DENIED AS MOOT. © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Crichlow v. Fischer, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2017) 2017 WL 6459512 *2 Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 238) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being asserted in a new action complaining about the conduct underlying the motion. The Clerk of the Court may enter final judgment and close the file in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. All Citations Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 6459512 Footnotes 1 Plaintiff names several “Doe” defendants, as well as defendants identified only by position or badge number (such as defendant “B-3 A Officer S.D.U.”). End of Document © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 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.