GLENN T. SUDDABY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
TODD R. BRIGLIN
Plaintiff, Pro Se
HON. LETITIA A. JAMES
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendant
RACHAEL OUIMET, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
DECISION AND ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Todd R. Briglin (“Plaintiff”) against New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision employee Thomas Giancola (“Defendant”), is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart's Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted as to Plaintiff's remaining claim in this action, a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. (Dkt. No. 75.) Neither party has submitted an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, the Court finds no error in the Report-Recommendation, clear or otherwise: Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein.
To those reasons, the Court adds only one point. Although the operative pleading in this action (Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint) also asserts a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Defendants are correct that such a claim had previously been dismissed with prejudice. (Compare Dkt. No. 32, at 28 with Dkt. No. 67, Attach. 1, at 3-4.) Although the Decision and Order so dismissing that claim stated in a footnote that various of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed without prejudice, none of those claims were Plaintiff's ADA claim, which was dismissed with prejudice. (Compare Dkt. No. 24, at 27, n. 20 [discussing claims that were dismissed “without prejudice”] with Dkt. No. 24, at 25 [not stating that Plaintiff's ADA claim was being dismissed “without prejudice,” unlike the other claims referenced in the above-referenced footnote]; Dkt. No. 52, at 4.) As a result, that claim is not currently pending before the Court.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 75) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 67) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the remainder of Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 32) is DISMISSED.