Dayter v. Czerwinski et al, No. 9:2020cv01151 - Document 41 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 38 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 37 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 11/29/2022. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular and certified mail) (sal)

Download PDF
Dayter v. Czerwinski et al Doc. 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________ NICHOLAS DAYTER, Plaintiff, 9:20-CV-1151 (GTS/DJS) v. EMILY KALLAY; OFFICER MICHAEL KING; OFFICER FULLER; OFFICER BENJAMIN FREEMAN; SGT. RAYMOND HOWARD; SGT. SHORTS; OFFICER MEYERS; OFFICER JERIMIAH JOHNSON; OFFICER ZACHARY KNOBLOCH; CODY DILLON; and ZACHARY BURKE, Defendants. _________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: NICHOLAS DAYTER Plaintiff, Pro Se 1019 Dean Street Schenectady, New York 12309 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 MATTHEW GALLAGHER, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Nicholas Dayter (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned correctional employees (“Defendants”), are (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted Dockets.Justia.com and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 28.) No party has filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, the Court finds no error in the Report-Recommendation, clear or otherwise:1 Magistrate Judge Stewart 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, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 38) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 37) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: November 29, 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.