Filed: Jan. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2017
Summary: ORDER GARY L. SHARPE , Senior District Judge . The above-captioned matter comes to this court following an Order and Report and Recommendation (R&R) by Magistrate Judge Th r se Wiley Dancks, duly filed on November 1, 2016. (Dkt. No. 35.) Following fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein. Defendants R. Bola and D. G. DuBrey object to the R&R on two grounds. (Dkt. No. 36.) First, defendants contend tha
Summary: ORDER GARY L. SHARPE , Senior District Judge . The above-captioned matter comes to this court following an Order and Report and Recommendation (R&R) by Magistrate Judge Th r se Wiley Dancks, duly filed on November 1, 2016. (Dkt. No. 35.) Following fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein. Defendants R. Bola and D. G. DuBrey object to the R&R on two grounds. (Dkt. No. 36.) First, defendants contend that..
More
ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, Senior District Judge.
The above-captioned matter comes to this court following an Order and Report and Recommendation (R&R) by Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, duly filed on November 1, 2016. (Dkt. No. 35.) Following fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein.
Defendants R. Bola and D. G. DuBrey object to the R&R on two grounds. (Dkt. No. 36.) First, defendants contend that it was error for Judge Dancks to excuse Curtis' failure to comply with Local Rule of Practice 7.1(a)(3), and, second, defendants argue that, because there was "no evidence to support [Curtis'] claim [that his grievance appeals were destroyed], apart from his own speculative and conclusory statements," summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be entered in their favor.1 (Dkt. No. 36, Attach. 1 at 2-7.) While both objections may fairly be characterized as specific, and therefore trigger de novo review, see Almonte v. N.Y.S. Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006), the court nonetheless adopts the R&R for exactly the reasons expressed by Judge Dancks. (Dkt. No. 35 at 13-15, 18-20.)
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Order and Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 35) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 29) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter be scheduled for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies before Judge Dancks; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the court's Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
