From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Monroe v. Mullen

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 26, 2007
9:06-CV-0144, (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2007)

Summary

finding issues of fact existed on both objective and subjective prongs wherein the plaintiff complained of an unsafe prison condition regarding the laundry van he was allegedly forced to ride despite the fact that it had inadequate seating capacity and non-working rear door latches

Summary of this case from Jenkins v. Fischer

Opinion

9:06-CV-0144, (LEK/DEP).

September 26, 2007


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August 15, 2007, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 24).

Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after a party has been served with a copy of a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Judge Peebles's Report-Recommendation. Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 17) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Monroe v. Mullen

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 26, 2007
9:06-CV-0144, (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2007)

finding issues of fact existed on both objective and subjective prongs wherein the plaintiff complained of an unsafe prison condition regarding the laundry van he was allegedly forced to ride despite the fact that it had inadequate seating capacity and non-working rear door latches

Summary of this case from Jenkins v. Fischer
Case details for

Monroe v. Mullen

Case Details

Full title:JAMEL MONROE, Plaintiff, v. DAWN MULLEN, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Sep 26, 2007

Citations

9:06-CV-0144, (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2007)

Citing Cases

Jenkins v. Fischer

Although not specifically on point, several other rulings from this District found questions of fact as to…

Gutierrez-Pinto v. Annucci

“[T]o succeed in establishing a constitutional deprivation in a setting such as that now presented the…