Youngblood v. The City of Mount Vernon et al, No. 7:2014cv10288 - Document 115 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 109 Report and Recommendation re: 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Griffen, The City of Mount Vernon, Patterson, M. Jones. Having found no error, clear or otherwise, the C ourt adopts in its entirety Judge McCarthy's thorough and well-reasoned R&R as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to terminat e the pending motion (Doc. #85) and close this case. The Clerk is further instructed to mail a copy of this memorandum opinion and order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that a ny appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 2/26/2018) (mro)

Download PDF

Youngblood v. The City of Mount Vernon et al Doc. 115 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x EUGENE YOUNGBLOOD, JR., : Plaintiff, : : v. : : CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, DETECTIVE : PATTERSON, POLICE OFFICER M. JONES, : and DETECTIVE GRIFFIN, : Defendants. : --------------------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 14 CV 10288 (VB) Briccetti, J.: Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), dated December 29, 2017 (Doc. #109), on defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. #85). Judge McCarthy recommended that the motion be granted. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. I. Standard of Review 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). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, but they must be “specific[,] written,” and submitted within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), or within seventeen days if the parties are served by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). When a party submits timely objections to a report and recommendation, the district court reviews the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected under a de novo standard of review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district court may adopt those portions of the recommended ruling to which no timely objections have 1 Dockets.Justia.com been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record. See Wilds v. UPS, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The clear error standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. See Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). As plaintiff is proceeding pro se, this Court “will ‘read [his] supporting papers liberally, and . . . interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’” Id. (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)). II. Plaintiff’s Objections Now before the Court are plaintiff’s timely objections to the R&R. (Doc. #112). Plaintiff appears to object to the entirety of the R&R. 1 However, plaintiff’s objections “engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments” already made to, and addressed by, Judge McCarthy. Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F.Supp.2d 342, 346–47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Accordingly, here, the appropriate standard of review for the R&R is clear error. Upon its review, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Nevertheless, in consideration of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court has also conducted a de novo review of the R&R, and has independently and thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant case law. Having done so, the Court finds no merit in plaintiff’s objections. The Court finds that the R&R is correct in all respects. 1 The Court declines to address plaintiff’s objections to Judge Koeltl’s May 5, 2015, Order (Doc. #9) dismissing defendant Johnson, which are untimely, and in any event without merit. The Court further declines to address plaintiff’s objection that discovery concluded before he received certain discovery materials. Plaintiff failed to make a motion to compel discovery, and the time to do so has long passed. 2 CONCLUSION Having found no error, clear or otherwise, the Court adopts in its entirety Judge McCarthy’s thorough and well-reasoned R&R as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the pending motion (Doc. #85) and close this case. The Clerk is further instructed to mail a copy of this memorandum opinion and order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Dated: February 26, 2018 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED: ____________________________ Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge 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.