Summary
noting that, even when a party fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment, the court should still determine whether the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
Summary of this case from Nuss v. SabadOpinion
9:05-CV-1305.
September 24, 2008
JOSE ORRACA, Plaintiff, Pro Se 93-A-9300, Southport Correctional Facility, Pine City, NY.
DOUGLAS J. GOGLIA, ESQ. Asst. Attorney General, HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the, State of New York, Attorney for Defendants, Department of Law, The Capitol, Albany, New York.
ORDER
Plaintiff, Jose Orraca, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a Report Recommendation dated August 28, 2008, the Honorable George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that defendants' motion for partial summary judgment be granted and that plaintiff's claims against defendants Rios, LaForge, and Valez be dismissed with prejudice. Objections to the Report Recommendation have been filed by the plaintiff.
Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which the plaintiff has objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that
1. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's claims against defendants C.O. Rios, C.O. LaForge, and C.O. Valez are DISMISSED with prejudice; and
3. Remaining for trial are plaintiff's claims against C.O. R. Pilatich and C.O. R. Kleister.
IT IS SO ORDERED.