Santos v. Schroeder et al, No. 9:2019cv01610 - Document 30 (N.D.N.Y 2021)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 14 ) is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/11/2021. (Copy served via regular mail)(meb)

Download PDF

Santos v. Schroeder et al Doc. 30 Case 9:19-cv-01610-LEK-TWD Document 30 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FRANCISCO SANTOS, Plaintiff, -against- 9:19-CV-1610 (LEK/TWD) C.O. B. SCHROEDER, et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Pro se plaintiff Francisco Santos, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff asserts claims arising out of his incarceration at Auburn Correctional Facility (“Auburn”) against Correction Officer B. Schroeder, Inmate Grievance Program Supervisor Cheryl Parmiter, and various John Doe defendants. Id. The Court reviewed the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(A) and 1915(e)(2)(B) and ordered that Plaintiff’s retaliation claims required a response from Defendants. Dkt. No. 5. In lieu of answering, Schroeder and Parmiter moved for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds. Dkt. No. 14 (“Motion for Summary Judgment”). On February 1, 2021, the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, recommended that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. See Dkt. No. 28 (“Report-Recommendation”). For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the ReportRecommendation in its entirety. Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:19-cv-01610-LEK-TWD Document 30 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 3 II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s factual allegations are detailed in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity with which is assumed. See R. & R. at 2–6. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If objections are timely filed, a court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). However, if no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306–07 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (“[E]ven a pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal . . . .”). “A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” § 636(b). IV. DISCUSSION Defendants did not file objections to the Report-Recommendation. See Docket. 2 Case 9:19-cv-01610-LEK-TWD Document 30 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 3 Consequently, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error and finds none. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. V. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 11, 2021 Albany, 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.