Opinion
9:11-CV-0776 (DNH/TWD)
06-27-2014
BRIAN TUITT, Plaintiff, v. P. CHASE, M. LOPEZ, N. BENWARE, LIEMUEX, REDEL, JOHN DOES 1-3, Defendants.
APPEARANCES BRIAN TUITT,06-A-1963 Plaintiff pro se Mid-State Correctional Facility HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Attorney for Defendants OF COUNSEL: CHRISTOPHER W. HALL, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General
APPEARANCES: BRIAN TUITT,06-A-1963
Plaintiff pro se
Mid-State Correctional Facility
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
Attorney for Defendants
OF COUNSEL: CHRISTOPHER W. HALL, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Brian Tuitt brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 22, 2014, the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that plaintiff's equal protection, access to courts, procedural due process, verbal harassment, and conspiracy claims be dismissed without leave to amend and that defendants be directed to respond to the remaining claims in the amended complaint. Defendants timely filed objections to the Report-Recommendation.
Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which defendants objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff's equal protection, access to courts, procedural due process, verbal harassment, and conspiracy claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend;
2. Defendants are directed to respond to the following claims in the manner provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
(a) the retaliation claim against defendants Chase and Redel regarding Involuntary Protective Custody placement;
(b) the retaliation claim against defendants Lopez, Benware, and Chase regarding transfer to another facility;
(c) the retaliation claim against defendant Redel regarding access to the law library and a notary;
(d) the retaliation claim against defendant Chase regarding the "SOP" sign;
(e) the retaliation claim against defendants Liemuex, Benware, and Chase regarding the magazine incident;
(f) the retaliation claim against defendants Lopez, Benware, and Chase regarding plaintiff's removal from the Sex Offender Counseling and Treatment Program;
(g) the retaliation claim against defendants Lopez and Benware regarding plaintiff"s placement in the general population; and
3. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 27, 2014
Utica, New York.
__________
United states District Judge