Opinion
9:20-CV-51 (GTS/TWD)
06-01-2021
CHRISTOPHER L. AYERS, Plaintiff, v. LT. SCARLOTTA, RICHARD MILLER, CORR. OFFICER MCFERRIN, Defendants.
CHRISTOPHER L. AYERS, 97-A-1592 Plaintiff, Pro Se Sullivan Correctional Facility Box 116 Fallsburg, New York 12733 NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE LAUREN ROSE EVERSLEY, ESQ. ATTORNEY GENERAL - Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants
CHRISTOPHER L. AYERS, 97-A-1592 Plaintiff, Pro Se Sullivan Correctional Facility Box 116 Fallsburg, New York 12733
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE LAUREN ROSE EVERSLEY, ESQ. ATTORNEY GENERAL - Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants
DECISION AND ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Christopher L. Ayers (“Plaintiff”) against the above three employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, are (1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks' Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted and that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. Nos. 58, 63.) Neither party has filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks' thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
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).
ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 63) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 58) is GRANTED ; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 50) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.