From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mack v. Griffin

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 27, 2006
9:04-CV-588 (NAM/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2006)

Summary

granting summary judgment where Muslim inmate alleged that he had been threatened with SHU if he did not comply with DOCCS beard policy

Summary of this case from Berisha v. Farrell

Opinion

9:04-CV-588 (NAM/RFT).

September 27, 2006

Jeffrey Mack, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General for the State of New York, Kelly L. Munkwitz, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Albany, New York, Attorney for Defendant.


MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER


Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 17) was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(c).

In a thorough Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21), Magistrate Judge Treece recommends that defendant's summary judgment motion be granted. Plaintiff has interposed an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducts a de novo review of those parts of a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to which a party specifically objects. Where only general objections are filed, the Court reviews for clear error. See Brown v. Peters, 1997 WL 599355, *2-* 3 (N.D.N.Y.), aff'd without op., 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999). Failure to object to any portion of a Report and Recommendation waives further judicial review of the matters therein. See Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993).

In his objection, plaintiff disputes only so much of the Report and Recommendation as concerns his First Amendment claims. On de novo review of this aspect of the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that defendant's restriction on the manner of tying back his beard is an infringement on his religious belief as a Muslim. Nor is there any evidence — direct or circumstantial — supporting a finding that the misbehavior report filed against him by defendant was filed in retaliation for plaintiff's grievances or for his beard.

It is therefore

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece (Dkt. No. 21) is accepted and adopted; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 17) is granted and the action dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Mack v. Griffin

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 27, 2006
9:04-CV-588 (NAM/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2006)

granting summary judgment where Muslim inmate alleged that he had been threatened with SHU if he did not comply with DOCCS beard policy

Summary of this case from Berisha v. Farrell

In Mack the allegations involved comments made by the defendant regarding the plaintiffs beard and suggestions that it be shaved.

Summary of this case from Simon v. Susice

evaluating a Muslim prisoner's claim involving shaving his beard as a First Amendment free exercise claim

Summary of this case from Masas v. Conte
Case details for

Mack v. Griffin

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY MACK, Plaintiff, v. P. GRIFFIN, Captain, Eastern Correctional…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Sep 27, 2006

Citations

9:04-CV-588 (NAM/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2006)

Citing Cases

Simon v. Susice

Pl.'s Opp. at pp. 13-14; see generally Pl.'s Dep. Nor does the Court find Defendants' reliance on Mack v. …

Masas v. Conte

It seems clear that plaintiff would not have a viable Eighth Amendment claim based on one, de minimis, use of…