Mejia v. Collins et al, No. 9:2019cv01482 - Document 38 (N.D.N.Y 2020)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 36) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 33 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 23) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 11/3/2020. (Copy served upon Plaintiff by regular mail). (sal )

Download PDF

Mejia v. Collins et al Doc. 38 Case 9:19-cv-01482-GTS-CFH Document 38 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ CARLOS MEJIA, Plaintiff, 9:19-CV-1482 (GTS/CFH) v. EVAN PRITCHARD, Corr. Officer, f/k/a Prichard; and MICHAEL SEXTON, Corr. Officer, f/k/a A. Saxton, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: CARLOS MEJIA, 17-A-2830 Plaintiff, Pro Se Five Points Correctional Facility Caller Box 119 Romulus, New York 14541 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 LYNN MARIE KNAPP, 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 Carlos Mejia (“Plaintiff”) against the two 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 to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rules 10.1(c) and 41.2(b) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court, and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:19-cv-01482-GTS-CFH Document 38 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 3 recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted, and that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rules 10.1(c) and 41.2(b) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 36.) 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. (Dkt. No. 36.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and Local Rules 10.1(c) and 41.2(b) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court. 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 to dismiss (Dkt. No. 33) is GRANTED; 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-01482-GTS-CFH Document 38 Filed 11/03/20 Page 3 of 3 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 23) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Dated: November 3, 2020 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.