Opinion
9:09-cv-743
03-28-2013
DERRICK BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL HOGAN, Commissioner, O.M.H., et al., Defendants.
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Derrick Brooks Pro Se FOR THE DEFENDANTS: HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General OF COUNSEL: DOUGLAS J. GOGLIA Assistant Attorney General
(GLS/RFT)
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Derrick Brooks
Pro Se
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
OF COUNSEL:
DOUGLAS J. GOGLIA
Assistant Attorney General
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff pro se Derrick Brooks commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was strip-searched at the Central New York Psychiatric Center (CNYPC), where he resides. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 31.) Following dismissal of several defendants and causes of action, (see Dkt. Nos. 26, 34), the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, (see Dkt. No. 60). In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) dated January 31, 2013, Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece recommended that defendants' motion be granted. (See Dkt. No. 67.) Pending is Brooks' objection to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 69.) For the reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is presumed.
II. Standard of Review
Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. 04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id.
"[A] report is clearly erroneous if the court determines that there is a mistake of fact or law which is obvious and affects substantial rights." Almonte, 2006 WL 149049, at *6.
--------
III. Discussion
Despite being filed as an objection to Judge Treece's R&R, Brooks' March 12, 2013 submission is, in fact, a near-verbatim recitation of his earlier-filed response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Compare Dkt. No. 65, with Dkt. No. 69.) As such, Brooks' "objection" is insufficient to compel de novo review. Having reviewed Judge Treece's R&R for clear error, and finding none, the court accepts and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
IV. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Treece's January 31, 2013 Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 67) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 60) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Brooks' Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 31) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum
Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 28, 2013
Albany, New York
______________
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
U.S. District Court