Booker v. Graham, 9:13-CV-1342 (GTS/ATB). (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. New York
Number: infdco20160420h69
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2016
Summary: DECISION and ORDER GLENN T. SUDDABY , Chief District Judge . Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Amin B. Booker, Paul Colon, and Lawrence Wilson ("Plaintiffs") against the above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections ("Defendants") arising from alleged religiousrights violations while Plaintiffs were inmates at Auburn Correctional Facility in Auburn, New York, are Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended C
Summary: DECISION and ORDER GLENN T. SUDDABY , Chief District Judge . Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Amin B. Booker, Paul Colon, and Lawrence Wilson ("Plaintiffs") against the above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections ("Defendants") arising from alleged religiousrights violations while Plaintiffs were inmates at Auburn Correctional Facility in Auburn, New York, are Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Co..
More
DECISION and ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief District Judge.
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Amin B. Booker, Paul Colon, and Lawrence Wilson ("Plaintiffs") against the above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections ("Defendants") arising from alleged religiousrights violations while Plaintiffs were inmates at Auburn Correctional Facility in Auburn, New York, are Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter's Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice to refiling upon the submission of a properly supported motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 186, 194.) None of the parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Baxter's thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein; and Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to refiling upon the submission of a properly supported motion for summary judgment.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 194) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 186) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling upon the submission of a properly supported motion for summary judgment.
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