Opinion
9:15-cv-0106 (BKS/ATB)
04-11-2016
FREDERICK DILLON, Plaintiff, v. DR. R. ADAMS, et al., Defendants.
APPEARANCES: Frederick Dillon 14-A-0649 Marcy Correctional Facility P.O. Box 3600 Marcy, NY 13403 Pro se Plaintiff Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman New York State Attorney General Joshua L. Farrell, Esq., Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 For Defendants
APPEARANCES:
Frederick Dillon
14-A-0649
Marcy Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 3600
Marcy, NY 13403
Pro se Plaintiff Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman
New York State Attorney General
Joshua L. Farrell, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
For Defendants Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge :
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff Frederick Dillon commenced this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at the Clinton Correctional Facility. (Dkt. No. 1). On April 30, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis after making a preliminary finding that Plaintiff had satisfied the "imminent danger" exception to the three strikes provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Dkt. No. 11). On October 26, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and conditionally dismiss the complaint. (Dkt. No. 42). Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on November 3, 2015. (Dkt. No. 43). A reply was filed by Defendants on November 30, 2015. (Dkt. No. 44).
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter, and on March 10, 2016, Magistrate Judge Baxter issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion to conditionally dismiss be denied. (Dkt. No. 45). Magistrate Judge Baxter advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file written objections to the report and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. See Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(e); Dkt. No. 45, at pp. 9-10. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed.
Since no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee's note to the 1983 addition. Under this standard, "the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and having found none, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 45) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Conditionally Dismiss (Dkt. No. 42) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2016
/s/_________
Brenda K. Sannes
U.S. District Judge