Opinion
Civil No. 9:04-CV-0257 (GLS/DRH).
February 2, 2006
RAY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff Pro Se, Marcy, New York, FOR THE PLAINTIFF OF COUNSEL.
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General, State of New York, RISA L. VIGLUCCI, Assistant Attorney General. Albany, New York, FOR THE DEFENDANTS OF COUNSEL.
Decision and Order
Pro se plaintiff, Ray Williams, filed a civil rights action alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated by the defendant, Corrections Officer Ingraham. See Dkt. No. 1.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ingraham subsequently moved to dismiss, and Williams moved to recuse Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. See Dkt. Nos. 10, 14. Judge Homer issued a report recommending the denial of Ingraham's motion, and an order denying the recusal motion. Dkt. No. 16. Neither party objected to Judge Homer's recommendation regarding dismissal, but Williams objected to Judge Homer's nondispositive order declining recusal. See Williams Objection, Dkt. No. 17.
The Clerk is directed to append Judge Homer's report and recommendation to this decision, and familiarity is presumed. Furthermore, the court adopts the factual summary in Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation and order, and assumes familiarity with the facts alleged in Williams' Complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 16,1.
Having reviewed Judge Homer's order and Williams' objection, the court concludes that the order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law for the reasons recited by Judge Homer. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); L.R. 72.1(b); see also Carmona v. Wright, ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2006 WL 172340, *5-6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2006); La Grande v. Adecco, ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2006 WL 205098, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2006); Mitchell v. Goord, 9:03-CV-19, 2005 WL 701096, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2005). Furthermore, since neither party has objected to Judge Homer's recommendation regarding dismissal, they have procedurally defaulted. See Almonte v. New York State Division of Parole, ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2006 WL 172340, *5-6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2006). Nonetheless, the court has reviewed the report for clear error, and finding none, the court adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety for the reasons stated. See Id. at *6.
Factually, Williams objects to Judge Homer's assertion that he has filed seventeen lawsuits since 1999. It is unnecessary to address this objection since this factual dispute has no bearing on the recusal motion.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated, it is hereby
ORDERED that the objection of Ray Williams ( Dkt. No. 14) is hereby DENIED, and the order of Magistrate Judge David R. Homer denying Williams' motion to recuse ( Dkt. No. 16) is adopted in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Judge Homer's Report ( Dkt. No. 16) recommending denial of Ingraham's motion to dismiss is adopted in its entirety.
So Ordered.