Opinion
9:18-CV-1203
09-17-2021
DESEAN HILL, Plaintiff, v. ANNE M. MCGRATH, Associate Commissioner, KATHLEEN GREY, OMH Therapist; Great Meadow Correctional Facility, and M. BERNARD, Guidance Staff; Great Meadow Correctional Facility, formerly known as Jane Doe, Defendants.
DESEAN HILL Plaintiff, Pro Se HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants BRENDA T. BADDAM, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General
APPEARANCES:
DESEAN HILL Plaintiff, Pro Se
HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants
OF COUNSEL:
BRENDA T. BADDAM, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge
On October 9, 2018, pro se plaintiff Desean Hill ("plaintiff), an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights at Great Meadow Correctional Facility ("Great Meadow C.F."). Dkt. No. 1. Following an initial review and a motion to dismiss, the parties proceeded to discovery on plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims alleging that defendants failed to protect him from assaults by other inmates. See Dkt. Nos. 9, 43. Thereafter, defendants moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs remaining claims. Dkt. No. 62.
On August 10, 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks advised by Report & Recommendation ("R&R") that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted as to plaintiffs claims against defendant McGrath. Dkt. No. 76. However, Judge Dancks recommended that defendants' summary judgment motion be denied as to plaintiffs Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against defendants Bernard and Grey. Id.
Neither party has filed objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. Upon review for clear error, the R&R will be accepted and adopted in all respects. See FED R. ClV. P. 72(b).
Plaintiff sought and received an extension of time in which to file objections. Dkt. No. 78. Plaintiffs other request will be addressed separately in due course. Dkt. Nos. 79, 81.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
3. Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims against defendant McGrath are DISMISSED;
4. Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against defendants Bernard and Grey remain for trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.