Summary
denying motions for injunction unrelated to the allegations in the complaint
Summary of this case from Arriaga v. GageOpinion
9:09-cv-1011 (GLS/DEP)
2013-09-30
LEROY DORSEY, Plaintiff, v. DALE ARTUS et al., Defendants.
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Leroy Dorsey Pro Se 97-A-3442 Elmira Correctional Facility FOR THE DEFENDANTS: HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General OF COUNSEL: ADELE M. TAYLOR-SCOTT Assistant Attorney General
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Leroy Dorsey
Pro Se
97-A-3442
Elmira Correctional Facility
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
OF COUNSEL:
ADELE M. TAYLOR-SCOTT
Assistant Attorney General
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff pro se Leroy Dorsey commenced this action against a host of defendants—all of whom have since been dismissed with the exception of Dale Artus, Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility and various John and Jane Does—pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the deprivation of his civil rights. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 17.) Dorsey's only remaining causes of action involve his claim that the Doe defendants, in two separate incidents, were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Dkt. No. 31.) Pending before the court are cross motions for summary judgment, and two motions for preliminary injunctive relief sought by Dorsey. (Dkt. Nos. 78, 84, 86, 93.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) dated September 3, 2013, Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, and Dorsey's summary judgment motion be denied, along with his motions seeking preliminary injunctions. (R&R, Dkt. No. 97.) For the reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
II. Background
Dorsey, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, was housed in Clinton Correctional Facility at the time relevant to this action. (See generally Dkt. No. 17.) Dorsey contends that four Doe defendants denied him access to certain medical equipment and his daily medication, and that two other Doe defendants refused him medical attention when, after eating breakfast one morning, his face and mouth swelled. (Id. at 8, 10.)
III. Standard of Review
Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. 04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id.
"[A] report is clearly erroneous if the court determines that there is a mistake of fact or law which is obvious and affects substantial rights." Almonte, 2006 WL 149049, at *6.
IV. Discussion
Dorsey only generically objects to the R&R, claiming that he is an "indigent plaintiff whose rights [were] violated, and the defendants get to hide behind lawyers, plus get away with violating the [Eighth A]mendment." (Dkt. No. 98 at 1.) This "objection" is general and triggers review for clear error. See Almonte, 2006 WL 149049, at *6. Having thoroughly reviewed the R&R, the court finds no clear error in Judge Peebles' recommendations on the pending motions, and adopts it in its entirety.
V. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles' Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 97) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Dorsey's motions for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. Nos. 78, 84) are DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Dorsey's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 93) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 86) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Dorsey's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 17) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 30, 2013
Albany, New York
________________________
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge,
U.S. District Court