Filed: Sep. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PAUL A. CROTTY District Judge . Pro se Plaintiff Luis Ricardo Paulino Rodriguez ("Plaintiff" or "Rodriguez") brings this action against the New York Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital (the "Hospital") and Thomas Naparst, M.D. ("Naparst") for violations of his constitutional rights while he was a detainee at the Metropolitan Con ectional Center of New York ("MCC"). 1 Rodriguez alleges that he received inadequate medical care at the Hospital, an
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PAUL A. CROTTY District Judge . Pro se Plaintiff Luis Ricardo Paulino Rodriguez ("Plaintiff" or "Rodriguez") brings this action against the New York Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital (the "Hospital") and Thomas Naparst, M.D. ("Naparst") for violations of his constitutional rights while he was a detainee at the Metropolitan Con ectional Center of New York ("MCC"). 1 Rodriguez alleges that he received inadequate medical care at the Hospital, and..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAUL A. CROTTY District Judge.
Pro se Plaintiff Luis Ricardo Paulino Rodriguez ("Plaintiff" or "Rodriguez") brings this action against the New York Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital (the "Hospital") and Thomas Naparst, M.D. ("Naparst") for violations of his constitutional rights while he was a detainee at the Metropolitan Con·ectional Center of New York ("MCC").1 Rodriguez alleges that he received inadequate medical care at the Hospital, and that Naparst and the Hospital were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Naparst has never been served. The Hospital moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
On July 31, 2015, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation
On July 31, 2015, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on the motion.2 Magistrate Judge Netburn construes Rodriguez's complaint as raising two claims: "(1) a Bivens claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need; and (2) a state law claim for negligent medical care." R & R at 6. With respect to the merits, Magistrate Judge Netburn recommends that the Hospital's motion to dismiss be granted and that the Court sua sponte dismiss the claim against Naparst. R & Rat 6-9. Magistrate Judge Netburn finds that the Hospital cannot be subject to a Bivens action under Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001), because it is a privately run hospital, and that Naparst cannot be subject to a Bivens action under Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S.Ct. 617 (2012), because he is a privately employed individual. Id. at 6-8. Magistrate Judge Netburn also recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rodriguez's state law claims. Id. at 9.
The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where neither party makes written objections, the Court may adopt the R & R as long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Wilds v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
Here, neither party has objected to the R & R, which was issued more than a month ago. Therefore, the Court reviews the R & R for clear en-or and finds none. The R & R is adopted in its entirety, and Rodriguez's complaint against the Hospital and Naparst is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
