Reed v. McGrath, et al., No. 9:2019cv01203 - Document 58 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 57 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 49 ) is DENIED. Defendants' cross-motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 53 ) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Titus, and otherwise DENIED (i.e., as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Bedore). The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE Titus, Sr., as a Defendant in this action. 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 1/27/2022. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal)

Download PDF

Reed v. McGrath, et al. Doc. 58 Case 9:19-cv-01203-GTS-TWD Document 58 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ ROBERT I. REED, Plaintiff, 9:19-CV-1203 (GTS/TWD) v. R. McGRATH, Corr. Offcr., Franklin Corr. Fac.; G. DUPRA, f/k/a G. Dupro; D. HEALEY, Corr. Offcr., Franklin Corr. Fac.; D. YELLE, Corr. Offcr., Franklin Corr. Fac.; G. SMYTHE, Corr. Offcr., Franklin Corr. Fac.; TITUS, SR., Corr. Offcr., Franklin Corr. Fac.; K. COMPO, Sgt./Corr. Offcr., Franklin Corr. Fac., and K. BEDORE, Sgt./Corr. Offcr., Franklin Corr. Fac., Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: ROBERT I. REED, 93-B-1119 Plaintiff, Pro Se Bare Hill Correctional Facility Caller Box 20 Malone, New York 12953 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 LAUREN ROSE EVERSLEY, 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 Robert I. Reed (“Plaintiff”) against the eight above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:19-cv-01203-GTS-TWD Document 58 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 3 1983, are (1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (2) Defendants’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment, and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ ReportRecommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied, that Defendants’ crossmotion be granted as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Titus, and that Defendants’ crossmotion be otherwise denied (i.e., as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bedore). (Dkt. Nos. 49, 53, 57.) 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 Dancks’ Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the thorough 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 set forth therein. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 57) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 49) is DENIED; and it is further 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-01203-GTS-TWD Document 58 Filed 01/27/22 Page 3 of 3 ORDERED that Defendants’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 53) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Titus, and otherwise DENIED (i.e., as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bedore); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE Titus, Sr., as a Defendant in this action. The Court certifies that an appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in good faith. Dated: January 27, 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.