From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanders v. Gifford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 4, 2014
9:11-CV-0326 (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2014)

Summary

holding that failure to follow a DOCCS directive does not give rise to a § 1983 claim

Summary of this case from Burrell v. DOCCS

Opinion

9:11-CV-0326 (LEK/RFT)

11-04-2014

JAMES SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. A. GIFFORD, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on September 18, 2014, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 101 ("Report-Recommendation").

Within fourteen days 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); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A., 434 F. App'x 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011); Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument.").

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 101) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendants Harold Graham and Cheryl Parmiter's Motion (Dkt. No. 94) to dismiss is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendants Harold Graham and Cheryl Parmiter are DISMISSED from this action; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 04, 2014

Albany, New York

/s/_________

Lawrence E. Kahn

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Sanders v. Gifford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 4, 2014
9:11-CV-0326 (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2014)

holding that failure to follow a DOCCS directive does not give rise to a § 1983 claim

Summary of this case from Burrell v. DOCCS

holding that failure to follow a DOCCS directive does not give rise to a § 1983 claim

Summary of this case from Fofana v. Bellamy
Case details for

Sanders v. Gifford

Case Details

Full title:JAMES SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. A. GIFFORD, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Nov 4, 2014

Citations

9:11-CV-0326 (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2014)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Annucci

Further, “[f]ailure to follow a DOCCS' Directive does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Id.; see also…

Velez v. Paredez

See Hyman v. Holder, No. 96-CV-7748, 2001 WL 262665, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2001) (holding that allegations…