Austin v. Rock et al, No. 9:2014cv00041 - Document 40 (N.D.N.Y 2016)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Court ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation (dkt. # 38 ) for the reasons stated therein. The defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. # 26 ) is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 7/6/16. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Austin v. Rock et al Doc. 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ DERRELL AUSTIN, Plaintiffs, vs. 9:14-CV-41 (TJM/ATB) DAVID ROCK and MAUREEN E. BOLL, Defendants. ________________________________________ THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge DECISION & ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). No objections to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation [dkt. # 38] have been filed, and the time to do so, including an extension granted by the Court, has expired. II. DISCUSSION After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report- Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report-Recommendation [dkt. # 38] for the 1 Dockets.Justia.com reasons stated therein. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt. # 26] is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 6, 2016 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.
