From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Mitchell

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 12, 2011
9:10-CV-88 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2011)

Opinion

9:10-CV-88 (FJS/DRH).

September 12, 2011

STEVEN RODRIGUEZ 07-A-5946, Sullivan Correctional Facility, Fallsburg, New York, Plaintiff pro se.

MEGAN M. BROWN, AAG, OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Albany, New York, Attorneys for Defendants.



ORDER


Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. See generally Dkt. No. 1. Defendants Mitchell, Grimshaw and Baxter filed a motion for summary judgment on January 7, 2010. See Dkt. No. 48. Plaintiff did not oppose that motion. On July 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge Homer issued a Report-Recommendation and Order, in which he recommended that this Court grant Defendants' motion. See Dkt. No. 58 at 12. None of the parties filed any objections to this Report-Recommendation and Order.

When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote omitted). After conducting that review, "the Court may `accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Homer's July 28, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order for clear error and manifest injustice; and, finding none, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Homer's July 28, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further

ORDERS that the summary judgment motion of Defendants Mitchell, Grimshaw and Baxter is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that this case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Homer for all further pretrial matters.

As a result of this Order, the only remaining claims in this action are Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Gillette (B. Drollette).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Mitchell

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 12, 2011
9:10-CV-88 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2011)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Mitchell

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. DONNIE MITCHELL, Correction Officer…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Sep 12, 2011

Citations

9:10-CV-88 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2011)