From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Wala

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jul 27, 2015
9:14-CV-1151 (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 27, 2015)

Opinion

9:14-CV-1151 (LEK/RFT)

07-27-2015

JOHNATHAN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. VIJAY-KUMAR-MANDALAY WALA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on June 30, 2015, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 28 ("Report-Recommendation").

Within fourteen days 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); L.R. 72.1(c). If a party objects to a report-recommendation, "the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo review." Williams v. Roberts, No. 11-CV-0029, 2012 WL 760777, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2012) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court should review that aspect of a report-recommendation for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply religating a prior argument."). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.

Accordingly it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendants' partial Motion (Dkt. No. 6) to dismiss is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that all Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Wala, are DISMISSED from this action; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 27, 2015

Albany, New York

/s/_________

Lawrence E. Kahn

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Johnson v. Wala

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jul 27, 2015
9:14-CV-1151 (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 27, 2015)
Case details for

Johnson v. Wala

Case Details

Full title:JOHNATHAN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. VIJAY-KUMAR-MANDALAY WALA, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Jul 27, 2015

Citations

9:14-CV-1151 (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 27, 2015)

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. Burnett

However, denial of access to grievance procedures is not a viable claim. Johnson v. Wala, No. …

Johnson v. Aarone-Beane

Johnson v. Fischer , 2011 WL 6739520, *2 (ND NY Dec. 22, 2011, No. 9:11-CV-386 [GLS/DRH] )Johnson v. Wala ,…