Rodriguez v. Selsky

Full title: NELSON RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. DONALD SELSKY, Defendant

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

Date published: Mar 3, 2011

9:07-CV-0432 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011)

Opinion

9:07-CV-0432 (LEK/DEP).

March 3, 2011

DECISION AND ORDER

LAWRENCE KAHN, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January 25, 2011, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, 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. 78). Therein, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommends granting Defendant Donald Selsky's Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 62) and dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 7) in its entirety. Dkt. No. 78. After receiving an extension of time to respond to the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff Nelson Rodriguez filed his objections ("Objections") on February 28, 2011. Dkt. No. 80.

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). Where, however, an objecting "`party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.'" Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citations and quotations omitted)); see also Brown v. Peters, No. 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997). "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 Plaintiffs Objections (Dkt. No. 80) 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 (Dkt. No. 78) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant Selsky's Motion for judgment (Dkt. No. 62) is GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 7) 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.

DATED: March 03, 2011

Albany, New York