Summary
holding that letter written to superintendent, without response, was insufficient to find personal involvement or awareness on behalf of superintendent
Summary of this case from Thurmond v. Thomas-WalshOpinion
9:02-CV-0276 (LEK/DEP).
July 10, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on June 2, 2008, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 53).
Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after a party has been served with a copy of a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Judge Peeble's Report-Recommendation. Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 53) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 52) is GRANTED and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety, without prejudice against defendant C.O. Gardner, but otherwise with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.