Opinion
9:13-CV-590 (GTS/TWD)
01-15-2016
BRUCE HENSON, Plaintiff, v. GAGNON, Sergeant, Upstate Corr. Facility; E. DuFRANE, Corr. Officer, Upstate Corr. Facility; D. ROCK, Superintendent, Upstate Corr. Facility; and HOUGE, Civilian, Hearing Officer, Upstate Corr. Facility; Defendants.
APPEARANCES: BRUCE HENSON, 09-A-1436 Plaintiff, Pro Se Upstate Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2001 Malone, New York 12953 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 OF COUNSEL: MELISSA A. LATINO, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General
APPEARANCES: BRUCE HENSON, 09-A-1436
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Upstate Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Malone, New York 12953 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224 OF COUNSEL: MELISSA A. LATINO, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Bruce Henson ("Plaintiff") against the four above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("Defendants") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, are (1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks' Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted. (Dkt. Nos. 40, 50.) None of the parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks' thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, and Defendant's motion is granted. To those reasons, the Court would add only that Plaintiff was twice provided the requisite Local Rule 56.2 notice. (Dkt. No. 40 at 4; Dkt. No. 42, at 2.)
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a "clear error" review, "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.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) ("I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge's] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.") (internal quotation marks omitted). --------
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 50) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 40) is GRANTED ; and it is further
ORDERED that, as the Court has adopted the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff's supervisory claims against Defendant Rock are DISMISSED ; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. NO. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment for Defendants and close this action. Dated: January 15, 2016
Syracuse, New York
/s/_________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge