Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

SCOTT M. THORPE, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN EUGENE McKENNA; LT. WILLIAM BREYEAR; and SGT. ARON BASSETT, Defendants.

GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge

APPEARANCES: SCOTT M. THORPE, 11-A-1284


Plaintiff, Pro Se
Auburn Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 618
Auburn, New York 13021
LEMIRE JOHNSON, LLC





Counsel for Defendants
P.O. Box 2485
2534 Route 9
Malta, New York 12020
OF COUNSEL: APRIL J. LAWS, ESQ.
GREGG T. JOHNSON, ESQ.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER






Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Scott M. Thorpe ("Plaintiff") against the three above-captioned correctional employees of Washington County Jail ("Defendants"), are Defendants' motion for summary judgment and United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter's Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted and that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. Nos. 25, 34.) Plaintiff has filed no Objection 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 Baxter's thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, his Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, Defendants' motion is granted, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed.

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 and citations omitted). --------

ACCORDINGLY, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 34) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 7) is DISMISSED. Dated: July 23, 2015


Syracuse, New York


/s/_________


Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby


U.S. District Judge


Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Thorpe v. McKenna
(Jul 23, 2015)