Opinion
9:21-CV-1001 (GTS/ATB)
07-24-2023
DUMAR JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER MOORE, Corr. Fac. Ofcr., Clinton Corr. Fac., Defendant.
DUMAR JACKSON, Plaintiff, Pro Se HON. LETITIA A. JAMES, Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendant, RACHEL OUIMET, ESQ. Assistant U.S. Attorney
DUMAR JACKSON, Plaintiff, Pro Se
HON. LETITIA A. JAMES, Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendant, RACHEL OUIMET, ESQ. Assistant U.S. Attorney
DECISION AND ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Dumar Jackson (“Plaintiff”) against Correctional Officer Moore (“Defendant”), are (1) Defendant's motion for summary judgment, (2) United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter's ReportRecommendation recommending that Defendant's motion be granted and Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed, and (3) Plaintiff's Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 16, 21, 22.) Because Plaintiff's one-page (four-sentence) Objection fails to specifically challenge any portion of the Report-Recommendation, the Court need review that Report-Recommendation for only clear error. After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein, and
When only a general objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2),(3); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition; see also Brown v. Peters, 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997) (Pooler, J.) [collecting cases], aff'd without opinion, 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999). Similarly, when no objection is made to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the 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.
Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.