Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Miller v. Annucci, 9:17-CV-0369 (GTS/DJS). (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. New York Number: infdco20190509d26 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 08, 2019
Latest Update: May 08, 2019
Summary: DECISION and ORDER GLENN T. SUDDABY , Chief District Judge . Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Oscar Miller ("Plaintiff") against Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("Defendant") seeking a Court order directing Defendant to produce documentary evidence in order to determine whether Plaintiff may be able to challenge his sentence, is United States Magistrate Judge Dan
More

DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Oscar Miller ("Plaintiff") against Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("Defendant") seeking a Court order directing Defendant to produce documentary evidence in order to determine whether Plaintiff may be able to challenge his sentence, is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart's Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted based on the fact that Defendant has provided Plaintiff with the requested documents and therefore Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is now moot. (Dkt. No. 52.) The parties have not filed objections to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart's thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 52.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant's motion is granted, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed.

ACCORDINGLY, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 42) is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 6) is DISMISSED.

FootNotes


1. When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a "clear error" review, "the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) ("I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge's] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer