Summary
granting motion to dismiss deliberate indifference claim against DOCS officer based on alleged seven-year failure to inform of Hepatitis C diagnosis where plaintiff "fail[ed] to allege any facts regarding what the polices are or how they related to [defendant's] alleged violations, instead simply stating that these policies exist."
Summary of this case from Doe v. New YorkOpinion
9:03-CV-0931, 9:04-CV-0799.
September 26, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following two Report-Recommendations, filed on September 6, 2006, and September 13, 2006, by the Honorable David R. Homer, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Sept. 6 Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 123); Sept. 13 Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 124). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections to both Report-Recommendations, by Plaintiff Reginald McFadden, which were filed on September 15, 2006, and September 21, 2006. Objections (Dkt. Nos. 125 127).
It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the September 6, 2006 Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 123) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 112) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As to Defendants Wright, Selsky, and Brown, the motion is GRANTED and these Defendants are DISMISSED from this case. As to Defendants Kloph and Crotty, the motion is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the September 13, 2006 Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 124) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgement against Defendant Lieb (Dkt. No. 86) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant Lieb's cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 88) is GRANTED and Defendant Lieb is DISMISSED from both the lead case and the member case, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.