Opinion
9:16-cv-994 (MAD/DJS)
03-27-2018
DENNIS DOUGLAS DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. JOE DOE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, c/o State of New York, SGT. WOODRUFF, Correctional Officer c/o State of New York, and R. LIVINGSTON, Correction Officer, Defendants.
APPEARANCES: DENNIS DOUGLAS DAVIS 16-A-1016 Sullivan Correctional Facility Box 118 Fallsburg, New York 12733 Plaintiff pro se OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Defendants OF COUNSEL: CHRISTOPHER J. HUMMEL, AAG
APPEARANCES:
DENNIS DOUGLAS DAVIS
16-A-1016
Sullivan Correctional Facility
Box 118
Fallsburg, New York 12733
Plaintiff pro se OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorney for Defendants
OF COUNSEL:
CHRISTOPHER J. HUMMEL, AAG Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge :
ORDER
On June 28, 2016, Plaintiff pro se Dennis Douglas Davis ("Plaintiff"), an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), commenced this civil rights action against Defendants Sgt. Woodruff, R. Livingston, and Joe Doe (collectively, "Defendants"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims arising out of his incarceration at Great Meadow Correctional Facility. See Dkt. No. 2.
The cited page numbers for docket entries in this Order refer to those assigned by the Court's electronic filing system ("ECF"). --------
On August 16, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Dkt. No. 35-6 at 5. In a December 29, 2017 Report-Recommendation and Order, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 41. Magistrate Judge Stewart found that Plaintiff admitted that he did not file an administrative grievance and Plaintiff's explanations did not excuse him from the exhaustion requirement. See Dkt. No. 41 at 5-6, 8-10.
In reviewing a report-recommendation and order, a district court "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)(C). When a party makes specific objections to a magistrate judge's report, the district court engages in de novo review of the issues raised in the objections. See id.; Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008). When a party fails to make specific objections, the court reviews the magistrate judge's report for clear error. See Farid, 554 F. Supp. 2d at 307; see also Gamble v. Barnhart, No. 02-CV-1126, 2004 WL 2725126, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2004).
On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation and Order. See Dkt. No. 43. However, Plaintiff's sole objection went to the merits of his claims without contesting Magistrate Judge Stewart's exhaustion determination. See id. at 2-3. As such, Plaintiff has made no specific objections.
A court may grant a motion for summary judgment only if "the court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law." Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). When analyzing a summary judgment motion, the court "'cannot try issues of fact; it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried.'" Id. at 36-37 (quotation and other citation omitted).
Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Stewart's December 29, 2017, Report-Recommendation and Order, the record, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Stewart correctly recommended that the Court should grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 41) is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 35) is GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2018
Albany, New York
/s/ _________
Mae A. D'Agostino
U.S. District Judge