Summary
ruling that the release of the plaintiff's medical records “did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional right to privacy since medical conditions were at the heart of the argument presented by Plaintiff in his habeas corpus petition”
Summary of this case from Santos v. Cnty. of HumboldtOpinion
No. 9:05-CV-0153 (LEK/RFT).
September 28, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on September 5, 2006, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 36). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Plaintiff John P. Barnes, which were filed on September 20, 2006. Objections (Dkt. No. 37).
It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation be APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and is further.
ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.