Opinion
9:14-CV-0192 (GTS/DEP)
02-25-2016
MATTHEW McCASKILL, Plaintiff, v. M. CALDWELL, Deputy Superintendent of Sec.; ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Acting Comm'r; and JOSEPH BELLNIER, Deputy Comm'r, Defendants.
APPEARANCES: MATTHEW McCASKILL Plaintiff, Pro Se 40 Saint Mark Place Brooklyn, New York 11217 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 OF COUNSEL: JUSTIN L. ENGEL, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General
APPEARANCES: MATTHEW McCASKILL
Plaintiff, Pro Se
40 Saint Mark Place
Brooklyn, New York 11217 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224 OF COUNSEL: JUSTIN L. ENGEL, 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 Matthew McCaskill ("Plaintiff") against the three above-captioned New York State correctional employees in their official capacities ("Defendants") arising from a disciplinary hearing while Plaintiff was an inmate at Riverside Correctional Facility, are Defendants' motion for summary judgment and United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles' Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Dkt. Nos. 32, 39.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) 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 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. After carefully reviewing the relevant papers in this matter, the Court can find no clear-error in Magistrate Judge Peebles' thorough Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Peebles 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. (Dkt. No. 39.)
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).
To those reasons, the Court adds only that, as pointed out by Defendants in their reply memorandum of law (Dkt. No. 37), because Plaintiff failed to specifically respond to either the properly supported facts asserted in Defendants' Statement of Material Facts or the facially meritorious legal arguments asserted in Defendants' memorandum of law despite receiving specific notice of the consequences of those failures (Dkt. No. 32, at 4), Plaintiff has lightened Defendants' burden on their motion, which they have easily met.
N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(b)(3); Rusyniak v. Gensini, 07-CV-0279, 2009 WL 3672105, at *1, n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2009) (Suddaby, J.) (collecting cases); Este-Green v. Astrue, 09-CV-0722, 2009 WL2473509, at *2 & nn.2, 3 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2009) (Suddaby, J.) (collecting cases). --------
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 39) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 32) is GRANTED ; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action. Dated: February 25, 2016
Syracuse, New York
/s/_________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge