Opinion
9:17-CV-254
06-03-2021
JEAN BERNIER, Plaintiff, v. KOENIGSMANN et al., Defendants.
JEAN BERNIER Plaintiff, Pro Se WILSON, ELSER LAW FIRM NICOLE E. HAIMSON, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants Koenigsmann, Jones, Coryer, Donnelly, O'Connor-Ryerson, Gilfus, Hesse, Ashley, Gardner, Dinello, and Mueller MEGGESTO, CROSSETT JAMES A. MEGGESTO, ESQ. & VALERINO, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Jeavons
JEAN BERNIER Plaintiff, Pro Se
WILSON, ELSER LAW FIRM NICOLE E. HAIMSON, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants Koenigsmann, Jones, Coryer, Donnelly, O'Connor-Ryerson, Gilfus, Hesse, Ashley, Gardner, Dinello, and Mueller
MEGGESTO, CROSSETT JAMES A. MEGGESTO, ESQ. & VALERINO, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Jeavons
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge
On March 6, 2015, pro se plaintiff Jean Bernier (“plaintiff”) filed this civil rights action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility and Southport Correctional Facility. Dkt. No. 1.
After plaintiff amended his complaint, Dkt. No. 20, the Western District of New York severed a number of his claims and transferred them to this judicial district, Dkt. Nos. 50, 51. Thereafter, the Court accepted plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for filing. Dkt. No. 57, 63, 64.
On July 28, 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 71. That motion was granted as to certain defendants and claims on March 15, 20 18. Dkt. No. 96, 104. At the request of the plaintiff, several other defendants were dismissed from this action on July 30, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 143-45.
The parties completed discovery into plaintiff's (1) Eighth Amendment medical-indifference claims against defendants Ashley and O'Connor-Ryerson; (2) Eighth Amendment medical-indifference claims against defendants Koenigsmann, Mueller, Dinello, Jones, Coryer, O'Connor-Ryerson, Ashley, Gardner, and Jeavons; (3) First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Ashley, O'Connor-Ryerson, and Jeavons; and (4) First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Hesse, Gilfus, and Donnelly. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on these claims pursuant to Rule 56. Dkt. Nos. 210, 213.
On May 13, 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter advised by Report & Recommendation that defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted and that plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 229. Plaintiff has not filed an objection, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See id.
Upon review for clear error, the Report & Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 229) is accepted and adopted; and
2. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment accordingly and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.