Reynolds v. O'Gorman et al, No. 9:2020cv00686 - Document 61 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lovirc, dkt. # 60 , are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 59 , is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 48 , is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on August 3, 2022. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Download PDF
Reynolds v. O'Gorman et al Doc. 61 Case 9:20-cv-00686-TJM-ML Document 61 Filed 08/03/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ JEREMY JOSEPH REYNOLDS, Plaintiff, v. 9:20-CV-686 (TJM/ML) T. STONE, C.O., Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants, Correction Officers at the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York, violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from injuries he sustained during a fight between dozens of prisoners in the recreation yard at the facility. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries when he was stabbed and struck during an attack by other inmates. The Court referred the matter to the Hon. Miroslav Lovric, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). The Report-Recommendation, dated June 21, 2022, recom mends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See dkt. # 59. Judge Lovric finds that no evidence supports Plaintiff’s claims that the Defendant Correction Officers acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. Some of the Defendant 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:20-cv-00686-TJM-ML Document 61 Filed 08/03/22 Page 2 of 3 Officers, Judge Lovric notes, were not present at the time of the alleged incident. Others, who observed the yard from watch towers, acted reasonably in firing tear-gas canisters multiple times into the massed inmates in an attempt to quell the fighting that erupted in the yard. Judge Lovric also finds that a third group of officers, who responded to the yard, are also entitled to summary judgment. That group of officers, Judge Lovric concludes, did not act to create any substantial risk of harm and in the end acted reasonably to protect the Plaintiff from harm in light of the situation on the ground. Moreover, Judge Lovric concludes, all Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity even if they had violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. See dkt. # 60. W hen a party objects to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation, the Court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in Plaintiff’s objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Judge Lovric for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation. Plaintiff’s objection is brief and claims that the Defendants “did not protect me” even though they had prior knowledge that a riot would occur. He does not point to support in the record f or this position, and does not challenge any of the bases for Judge Lorvic’s recommendations. 2 Case 9:20-cv-00686-TJM-ML Document 61 Filed 08/03/22 Page 3 of 3 It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lovirc, dkt. # 60, are hereby OVERRULED. The ReportRecommendation, dkt. # 59, is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 48, is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2022 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.