Clark v. Radsatt et al, No. 9:2015cv00304 - Document 22 (N.D.N.Y 2016)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/17/16. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

Download PDF
Clark v. Radsatt et al Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ ANDRE CLARK, Plaintiff, 9:15-CV-0304 (GTS/DEP) v. T. BELL, C.O., Riverview Corr. Facility; D. MIDDLEMISS, C.O., Riverview Corr. Facility; T. MACKAY, C.O., Riverview Corr. Facility; DUVALL, Sgt., Riverview Corr. Facility; and SERGEANT SOVIE, Riverview Corr. Facility, Defendants. __________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: ANDRE CLARK, 12-A-2949 Plaintiff, Pro Se Clinton Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2001 Dannemora, New York 12929 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendants 615 Erie Boulevard West, Suite 102 Syracuse, New York 13204 KEVIN M. HAYDEN, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Andre Clark (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”) arising from an alleged assault while Plaintiff was an inmate at Riverview Correctional Facility in Ogdensburg, New York, are Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles’ Report-Recommendation recommending that because Defendants’ motion for summary Dockets.Justia.com judgment be granted and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 21.) None of the parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Peebles’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Peebles 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, Defendants’ motion is granted, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety and the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment for Defendants and close this action; and it is further Dated: August 17, 2016 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY Chief United States District Judge 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

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.