Morrison v. Lowry et al, No. 9:2014cv00800 - Document 84 (N.D.N.Y 2016)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 83 Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied. It is ordered that Pro Bono Counsel be appointed for the Plaintiff f or purposes of trial only; any appeal shall remain the responsibility of the plaintiff alone unless a motion for appointment of counsel for an appeal is granted; and upon assignment of Pro Bono Counsel, a final pretrial conference will be scheduled w ith counsel only, at which time the Court will schedule for trial Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Timothy Lemery, Sean Baxter and Kory Copeland, and a claim for failure to intervene against Defendant Robert Lowry. The parties are directed to appear at the final pretrial conference with settlement authority. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/23/16. (lmw)(Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Morrison v. Lowry et al Doc. 84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ SCOTTIE MORRISON, Plaintiff, 9:14-CV-0800 (GTS/DJS) v. ROBERT LOWRY, Corr. Sergeant, Great Meadow Corr. Facility; T. LEMERY, Corr. Officer, Great Meadow Corr. Facility; K. COPELAND, Corr. Officer, Great Meadow Corr. Facility; and S. BAXTER, Corr. Officer, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: SCOTTIE MORRISON, 99-A-0470 Plaintiff, Pro Se Elmira Correctional Facility P.O. Box 500 Elmira, New York 14902 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 LOUIS JIM, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Scottie Morrison (“Plaintiff”) against the four above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision at Great Meadow Correctional Facility (“Defendants”), are Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be Dockets.Justia.com denied and that this action be deemed trial ready. (Dkt. Nos. 66, 83.) None of the parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Stewart 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 Plaintiff’s motion is denied and this action is deemed trial ready. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 83) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 66) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that that Pro Bono Counsel be appointed for the Plaintiff for purposes of trial only; any appeal shall remain the responsibility of the plaintiff alone unless a motion for appointment of counsel for an appeal is granted; and it is further ORDERED that upon assignment of Pro Bono Counsel, a final pretrial conference will be scheduled with counsel only, at which time the Court will schedule for trial Plaintiff's Eighth 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). 2 Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Timothy Lemery, Sean Baxter and Kory Copeland, and a claim for failure to intervene against Defendant Robert Lowry. The parties are directed to appear at the final pretrial conference with settlement authority. Dated: September 23, 2016 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY Chief United States District Judge 3
]]>
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.
