Chapman v. John Doe (One) et al, No. 9:2019cv01257 - Document 37 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 36 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 31 ) is GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/9/2022. (Copy served upon plaintiff served via regular mail)

Download PDF
Chapman v. John Doe (One) et al Doc. 37 Case 9:19-cv-01257-GTS-CFH Document 37 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________ DARRELL CHAPMAN, a/k/a Darrell Bishop Chapman, Plaintiff, 9:19-CV-1257 (GTS/CFH) v. OFFICER MICHAEL A. BELIVEAU, a/k/a John Doe (One); and OFFICER MATTHEW A. COREY, a/k/a John Doe (Two), Defendants. _____________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: DARRELL CHAPMAN, 25100-052 Plaintiff, Pro Se Coleman Low Federal Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. Box 1031 Coleman, Florida 33521 HON. EUGENIA CONDON Albany County Attorney Counsel for Defendants 112 State Street Albany, New York 12207 KEVIN M. CANNIZZARO, ESQ. Assistant Albany County Attorney 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 Darrell Chapman (“Plaintiff”) against the two above-captioned law enforcement officers (“Defendants”), 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-01257-GTS-CFH Document 37 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 2 granted, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice (and without prior leave to amend). (Dkt. Nos. 31, 36.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time period in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, 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 Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 36) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 31) is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Dated: June 9, 2022 Syracuse, New York 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

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.