Opinion
19-CV-151 (JLS) (LGF)
11-08-2022
STONEY HARRISON, v. B. J. GABEL, KEVIN BROWN, AHMED MUHAMMAD, AND STEWART ECKART, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
JOHN L. SINATRA, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Stoney Harrison commenced this action on January 28, 2019. Dkt. 1. Pursuant to an Order issued by District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo on November 14, 2019 (Dkt. 3), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 30, 2019. Dkt. 4. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (“RLUIPA”) based on Defendants' alleged refusal to allow Plaintiff to wear his white shirt and bowtie while attending religious services. Id.
The case was reassigned to the undersigned on February 14, 2020. Dkt. 6.
On April 13, 2020, this Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 9. Following a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8) and a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 13), this Court issued a Decision and Order dismissing Plaintiffs RLUIPA claims for money damages against Defendants in their individual capacities as well as all damage claims against Defendants in their official capacities. Dkt. 17.
On October 21, 2022, Defendants Brown, Eckert, Muhammad, and Nelson moved for Judgement on the Pleadings. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motion on November 12, 2021. Dkt. 18. Defendants did not file a reply.
Defendant B.J. Gabel is no longer a party to this action.
On August 23, 2022, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendants' motion (Dkt. 15) and dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. Dkt. 19. On September 15, 2020, Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 22. Defendants responded to Plaintiffs objections, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 24, 25.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objection, response, and reply, and the materials submitted by the parties. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts Judge Foschio's recommendation.
The Court further notes that, because Plaintiff is no longer housed at Wende, see Dkt. 20, his claims are moot. See Booker v. Graham, 974 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir. 2020) (stating that, in the Second Circuit, “an inmate's transfer from a prison facility generally moots claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against officials of that facility”) (internal citations omitted).
For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion (Dkt. 15). As a result, the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend.
SO ORDERED.