Opinion
9:15-CV-89 (DNH/DJS)
03-23-2018
SHANE HYATT, Plaintiff, v. DAVID A. ROCK, Former Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility; JAMES SPINNER, JR., Lieutenant, Upstate Correctional Facility; J. HEBERT, JR., Corrections Sergeant, Upstate Correctional Facility; MICHAEL J. EDDY, Corrections Sergeant, Upstate Correctional Facility; DAVID BICKFORD, Former Corrections Sergeant, Upstate Correctional Facility; TIMOTHY RAMSDELL, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; TIMOTHY ARQUITT, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; BETSY MITCHELL-ODDEY, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; BRIAN M. FOURNIER, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; CASEY B. KEATING, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; JAMIE J. WILLETT, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; RONALD LAROCQUE, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; ADAM C. RIPA, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; DAVID GREENE, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; WAYNE PALMER, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility; and SCOTT D. LAMARE, Corrections Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility, Defendants.
APPEARANCES: SHANE HYATT Plaintiff pro se 05-A-4430 Five Points Correctional Facility Caller Box 119 Romulus, NY 14541 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Attorney for Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 CHRISTOPHER J. HUMMEL, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General
APPEARANCES: SHANE HYATT
Plaintiff pro se
05-A-4430
Five Points Correctional Facility
Caller Box 119
Romulus, NY 14541 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Attorney for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224 CHRISTOPHER J. HUMMEL, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Shane Hyatt brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 16, 2018, the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendant Rock's motion for summary judgment be granted and all claims against him be dismissed. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation.
Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which plaintiff objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
Defendant David A. Rock's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the amended complaint is DISMISSED as against him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
United States District Judge Dated: March 23, 2018
Utica, New York.