Summary
suggesting a retaliation claim could lie if there was "evidence of a causal connection between Plaintiff's protected First Amendment conduct . . . and the denial of his FOIL requests"
Summary of this case from Myers v. Municipality of Greene Cnty.Opinion
9:10-CV-121
03-14-2013
NATHANIEL GREEN, Plaintiff, v. MR. LAWRENCE SEARS, Superintendent, Ogdensburg Correctional Facility; MRS. A. CHARLEBOIS, Deputy Superintendent of Programs; MRS. PATRICIA BURNELL, Deputy Superintendent for Administrations; MR. LAWRENCE KANALY, Security Captain; MR. DOTY (Sgt); MR. LAFAYE (Sgt); MR. PATAK, (Sgt); MRS. HELGA ROSS, Inmate Record Coordinator; MRS. SUSAN MCLEAR, Inmate Accounts; MR. GERRY MOLNAR, Inmate Grievance Coordinator; MRS. A. BALDWIN, Correctional Counselor; MR. PHIL JESSMAN, Mail Room Clerk; MR. BALCOM, Correction Officer; MR. FRARY, Correction Officer; and MR. CURRIER, Correction Officer, Defendants.
NATHANIEL GREEN Plaintiff pro se HARRIS, CONWAY & DONOVAN, PLLC Counsel for Defendant Philip Jessmer HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for the Remaining Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL C. CONWAY, ESQ.
; MR. BALCOM, Correction Officer; MR. FRARY, APPEARANCES: NATHANIEL GREEN
Plaintiff pro se
HARRIS, CONWAY & DONOVAN, PLLC
Counsel for Defendant Philip Jessmer
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for the Remaining Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL C. CONWAY, ESQ. C. HARRIS DAGUE, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 19, 2013, the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report-Recommendation, that defendant Philip Jessmer's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 45, be granted and that the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 48, be granted in part and denied in part. No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed.
Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).
Therefore it is
ORDERED that
1. Defendant Jessmer's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 45, is GRANTED;
2. The remaining defendants motion for summary judgment , Dkt. No. 48 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
(A) Plaintiff's claim for retaliation in connection with the denial of his request to disburse $3,800 to his attorney Melvin Simensky as against defendants Patak and Kanaly survives; and
(B) All other claims asserted by plaintiff are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 14, 2013
Utica, New York.
_______________
United States District Judge