From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Collins v. City of New York

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Aug 23, 2007
05-CV-5595 (NGG) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2007)

Summary

holding that plaintiff's claim that defendants violated FOIL did not give rise to a federal claim under Section 1983

Summary of this case from Reed v. Medford Fire Dep't, Inc.

Opinion

05-CV-5595 (NGG) (LB).

August 23, 2007


ORDER


Jabbar Collins ("Collins"), who is incarcerated, alleges that his constitutional rights were violated (1) when officials in the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office ("DAO") persuaded officials in the New York City Department of Probation ("DOP") to terminate probation-violation proceedings against two men who testified against Collins during a criminal trial and (2) when Collins was denied access, after his conviction, to DOP records that document or are otherwise relevant to the alleged communications between DAO and DOP. Before the court is Defendants' motion to dismiss this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

This court referred Defendants' motion to the Honorable Lois Bloom, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). (Order dated February 7, 2007.) Judge Bloom recommended that this court grant Defendants' motion and dismiss this case in its entirety. (Report and Recommendation dated March 9, 2007.) Collins objected to Judge Bloom's recommendation in its entirety. (Collins Br. dated May 16, 2007.) This court must therefore consider de novo the motion to dismiss. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

This court has reviewed Collins' Second Amended Complaint, Defendants' brief in support of their motion to dismiss, Collins' brief opposing that motion, Defendants' reply brief in further support of that motion, Judge Bloom's Report and Recommendation, Collins' objections to the Report and Recommendation, Defendants' responses to Collins' objections, and Collins' reply in further support of his objections. This court has considered de novo all issues raised in those documents.

Defendants argue that Collins' objections to Judge Bloom's Report and Recommendation were untimely. For the purpose of deciding the motion now before the court, that argument is rejected and Collins' objections are deemed to have been timely filed.

For the reasons set forth in Judge Bloom's thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, this court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Report and Recommendation of Judge Bloom dated March 9, 2007 is approved, adopted, and ratified in its entirety by this court. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety. This case is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Collins v. City of New York

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Aug 23, 2007
05-CV-5595 (NGG) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2007)

holding that plaintiff's claim that defendants violated FOIL did not give rise to a federal claim under Section 1983

Summary of this case from Reed v. Medford Fire Dep't, Inc.

finding plaintiff failed to state a § 1983 claim related to a FOIL request because "[i]t is well settled that violations of state law are not actionable under § 1983"

Summary of this case from Brown v. City of N.Y.
Case details for

Collins v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JABBAR COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; THE NEW YORK CITY…

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

Date published: Aug 23, 2007

Citations

05-CV-5595 (NGG) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2007)

Citing Cases

Rios v. Mantellino

Defendants' alleged failure to respond to plaintiff's FOIL requests does not state a claim under § 1983. See…

Reed v. Medford Fire Dep't, Inc.

” Papay v. Haselhuhn, No. 07–CV–3858, 2010 WL 4140430, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010); see also Old St.…