From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hernandez v. Selsky

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Mar 7, 2006
No. 9:04-CV-0552 (LEK/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2006)

Opinion

No. 9:04-CV-0552 (LEK/GHL).

March 7, 2006


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January 18, 2006, by the Honorable George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 23).

Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after a party has been served with a copy of a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. In the interval of at least fifteen days since the Magistrate Judge filed the subject Report-Recommendation, no objections to it have been raised. Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.

The Court notes three minor errors, however, in the Report-Recommendation. First, the citation for the case ofStraker v. Metro. Trans. Auth. is incorrectly provided as 331 F. Supp. 2d 91 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 23) at 2 n. 3. The correct citation is 333 F. Supp. 2d 91 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). Second, the case of Melo v. Coombe, 97-CV-0204, 1998 WL 67667 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 1998) is cited in footnote 12. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 23) at 7 n. 12. The correct caption for that case is Melo v. Combes. Lastly, the case of Vasquez v. Coughlin is mis-cited as 726 F. Supp. 2d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) in footnote 23 of the Report-Recommendation. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 23) at 13 n. 23. The correct citation is 726 F. Supp. 466 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 20) is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hernandez v. Selsky

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Mar 7, 2006
No. 9:04-CV-0552 (LEK/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2006)
Case details for

Hernandez v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:ANGEL HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. DONALD SELSKY, Defendant

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

Date published: Mar 7, 2006

Citations

No. 9:04-CV-0552 (LEK/GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2006)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Calero

We find these arguments to be unconvincing. Defendants first claim that plaintiff had no right to an…

Sweet v. Wende Correctional Facility

I disagree. First, the lack of a transcript itself does not give rise to a constitutional violation. See…