Dixon v. Colon et al, No. 8:2019cv00066 - Document 7 (N.D.N.Y 2019)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER adopting 6 Report and Recommendations. ORDERED that Plaintiff's 2 Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 6/4/2019. (Copy served on Pro Se Plaintiff via regular and certified mail)(jdp )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dixon v. Colon et al Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ CHARMAINE A. DIXON, Plaintiff, 8:19-CV-0066 v. SERGEANT COLON, et al., Defendants. _________________________________________ THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge DECISION & ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This pro se action was referred to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for an initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). No objections to Magistrate Judge Hummel’s June 24, 2019 Report-Recommendation and Order [Dkt. No. 6] have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants violated her constitutional rights pursuant to the Eighth Amendment by suspending her visitation with her incarcerated son. See generally Compl. Plaintiff asserts that she is “not looking for money damages” but rather to have her visitation restored. Id., at 6. Magistrate Judge Hummel recommends that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice because 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff does not retain a constitutional right to visitation with her incarcerated son, and because the suspension of Plaintiff’s visitation privileges ended nearly two months ago making her requested relief moot. See Report-Recommendation and Order, at 5-7. After examining the record, this Court has determined that the recommendation in the Report-Recommendation and Order is not subject to attack f or plain error or manifest injustice. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the recommendation in the Report-Recommendation and Order [Dkt. No. 6] for the reasons stated therein. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 2) is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:June 4, 2019 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
