Santiago v. Schenectady County Jail et al, No. 9:2020cv01411 - Document 36 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 35 ) for the reasons stated therein. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 25 ) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's complaint's (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 8/24/2022. (Copy served via regular mail)(meb)

Download PDF
Santiago v. Schenectady County Jail et al Doc. 36 Case 9:20-cv-01411-TJM-CFH Document 36 Filed 08/24/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ TONY SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, 9:20-CV-1411 (TJM/CFH) v. C.O. RYAN DICKERSHAID, and SGT. SHERMAN, Defendants ________________________________________ THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Judg e Hummel addressed the summary judgment motion brought by the remaining defendants in this action. See Dkt. No. 35 (June 13, 2022 Report-Recommendation and Order); Dkt. No. 25 (Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement). Judge Hummel concluded that defendants had satisfied their burden of establishing that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on the remaining claims prior to bringing suit, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Dkt. No. 35 at 15. Judge Hummel also concluded that plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because plaintiff’s incarceration at 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:20-cv-01411-TJM-CFH Document 36 Filed 08/24/22 Page 2 of 2 the Schenectady County Jail ended on June 16, 2021, almost a year after the incidents at issue, and because the record showed that plaintiff filed multiple grievances several months prior to leaving the Jail thus indicating that plaintiff had ample opportunity to exhaust his administrative remedies. See id. at 16. Accordingly, Judge Hummel recommended that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. See id. at 17. No objections to the recommendation have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. II. DISCUSSION After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report- Recommendation and Order is not subject to attack f or plain error or manifest injustice. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 35) for the reasons stated therein. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s complaint’s (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 24, 2022 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.