From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Wurzberger

United States District Court, N.D. New York
May 19, 2008
No. 05-cv-0968 (GLS-DEP) (N.D.N.Y. May. 19, 2008)

Opinion

No. 05-cv-0968 (GLS-DEP).

May 19, 2008

OF COUNSEL: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: TERRY SMITH, Pro Se, 98-A-3744, Attica Correctional Facility, Attica, New York.

FOR THE DEFENDANT: MICHAEL G. McCARTIN, ESQ., HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, New York Attorney General, The Capitol, Albany, New York.


DECISION AND ORDER


The above-captioned matter comes to this court following a Report and Recommendation ("R R") by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles, filed March 27, 2008. (Dkt. No. 34.) The R R recommended that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted. Pending are the plaintiff's timely objections ("Objections") to the R R. (Dkt. No. 35.)

The Clerk is directed to append the R R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is presumed.

It is plain from the plaintiff's Objections that he disagrees with the result reached by Judge Peebles. However, beyond noting his disagreement, he does not point to any specific errors in the R R. Rather, his Objections are general and conclusory in nature. ( See, e.g., Objections at 1 ("Deliberate indifference was explained to the court correctly.").) Therefore, the court has reviewed the R R for clear error. See Almonte v. New York State Div. of Parole, No. 9:04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *3-6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006); Lara v. Bloomberg, No. 04-cv-8690, 2008 WL 123840, at *3 n. 5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2008) (reviewing R R for clear error where plaintiff's objections "reveal only his disagreement with the conclusions reached by [the Magistrate Judge]" and "do not assert any specific errors contained in the Report"). Upon such review, the court finds no error in Judge Peebles's analysis. Accordingly, the R R is approved and adopted in its entirety.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles's March 27, 2008 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 28) is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk provide copies of this Decision and Order to the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Wurzberger

United States District Court, N.D. New York
May 19, 2008
No. 05-cv-0968 (GLS-DEP) (N.D.N.Y. May. 19, 2008)
Case details for

Smith v. Wurzberger

Case Details

Full title:TERRY SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BEZALEL WURZBERGER, Defendant

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

Date published: May 19, 2008

Citations

No. 05-cv-0968 (GLS-DEP) (N.D.N.Y. May. 19, 2008)