Summary
dismissing due process claim because Plaintiff failed to "demonstrate prejudice and non-harmless error from a disciplinary hearing officer's refusal to ask that potential witness to participate in the hearing"
Summary of this case from White v. MarinelliOpinion
9:14-CV-1198 (DNH/DEP)
09-28-2016
TRAZZ SAWYER, Plaintiff, v. ALBERT PRACK; D. PHELIX; D. RICHARDS; S. LANGDON, JOHN DOE #1-3; Defendants.
APPEARANCES: TRAZZ SAWYER Plaintiff, Pro Se 97-B-2413 3531 Gasin Basin Road Albion, NY 14411 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Attorneys for Defendant James Thomsen The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 OF COUNSEL: KEVIN M. HAYDEN, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General
APPEARANCES: TRAZZ SAWYER
Plaintiff, Pro Se
97-B-2413
3531 Gasin Basin Road
Albion, NY 14411 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Attorneys for Defendant James Thomsen
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224 OF COUNSEL: KEVIN M. HAYDEN, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Trazz Sawyer brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 29, 2016, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 be granted in part and denied in part. See ECF No. 40. Plaintiff has filed timely objections. See ECF No. 41.
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:
(1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
(2) Plaintiff's due process claim asserted against defendants Phelix and Prack is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
(3) Plaintiff's excessive force claims asserted against the John Doe defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
(4) Defendants' motion with regards to plaintiff's excessive force claims against defendants Richards and Langdon is DENIED and such claims remain;
(5) Defendants Phelix, Prack, John Doe #1, John Doe #2 and John Doe #3 are DISMISSED from this action; and
(6) The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
United States District Judge Dated: September 28, 2016
Utica, New York