Briglin v. Morley et al, No. 9:2020cv00614 - Document 52 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 48 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 40 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as recommended in the R eport-Recommendation. The remaining claim in Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 32 ) - i.e., his claim against Defendant for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need pursuant to the Eighth Amendment - is DISMISSED to the extent it seeks money damages against Defendant in his official capacity, but otherwise SURVIVES Defendant's motion to dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/7/2022. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal )

Download PDF

Briglin v. Morley et al Doc. 52 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ TODD R. BRIGLIN, Plaintiff, 9:20-CV-0614 (GTS/DJS) v. THOMAS GIANCOLA, Corr. Offcr., f/k/a Corrections Officer G, Defendant. ________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: TODD R. BRIGLIN Plaintiff, Pro Se 5 Maple Street, Apt. 5 Canisteo, New York 14823 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendant The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 KEITH J. STARLIN, 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 Todd R. Briglin (“Plaintiff”) against Thomas Giancola, an employee of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendant”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, are (1) United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be denied except to the extent that Plaintiff seeks money damages from Defendant based on actions taken in his official capacity, (2) Dockets.Justia.com Defendant’s Objections to the Report-Recommendation, and (3) Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Objections. (Dkt. Nos. 48, 50, 51.) Generally, a district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, but they must be "specific written objections," and must be submitted "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] . . . to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). "Where, however, an objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error." Caldwell v. Crosset, 09-CV-0576, 2010 WL 2346330, at * 1 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2010) (quoting Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the Court construes Defendant’s Objections as not asserting any new arguments, but as merely reiterating his original arguments. (Compare Dkt. No. 50, at 5-16 [Def.’s Objections, asserting arguments regarding both prongs of standard governing Eighth Amendment claim of inadequate medical care, and argument regarding qualified immunity defense] with Dkt. No. 40, Attach. 1, at 8-17 [Def.’s Memo. of Law, asserting the same three arguments] and Dkt. No. 46, at 3-9 [Def.’s Reply Memo. of Law, asserting the same three arguments].) As a result, the Court need subject the Report-Recommendation to only a clear-error review, which it easily survives. 2 In any event, even if the Court were to subject Magistrate Judge Stewart’s ReportRecommendation to a de novo review, it would find that it survives that review: Magistrate Judge Stewart has employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly 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 (and the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Objections). To those reasons, the Court would add only one point: the “factual detail” and/or “specific condition” repeatedly demanded by Defendant in his Objections (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 50, at 8, 10, 11 [emphasis added]) are not actually required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 10 and 12(b)(6).1 Rather, all is required is sufficient factual allegations to plausibly suggest both the objective and subjective components of an Eighth Amendment claim. Here, those factual allegations are presented (albeit barely). ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 48) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 40) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as recommended in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further 1 See Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545, 570 (2007) (Souter, J.) ("[A] complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations . . . . Here, the Court is not requiring heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.") (emphasis added), accord, In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 2007) ("While Twombly does not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, it does require enough facts to 'nudge [plaintiffs'] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'") (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; emphasis added). 3 ORDERED that the remaining claim in Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 32)–i.e., his claim against Defendant for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need pursuant to the Eighth Amendment–is DISMISSED to the extent it seeks money damages against Defendant in his official capacity, but otherwise SURVIVES Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dated: March 7, 2022 Syracuse, New York 4

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.