Nuñez v. Hasty , 372 F. App'x 149 ( 2010 )

08-0139-pr
Nuñez v. Hasty, et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 19 th day of April, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 AMALYA L. KEARSE,
9 GUIDO CALABRESI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 ELIAS NUÑEZ,
14
15 Plaintiff-Appellant,
16
17 -v.- 08-0139-pr
18
19 DENNIS W. HASTY, Warden, MDC-Brooklyn,
20 MIDDLETON, Medical Supervisor, MDC-
21 Brooklyn, F. FRANCIN, Medical
22 Director, MDC-Brooklyn, M.E. RAY,
23 B.O.P. Northeast Regional Director, C.
24 SHACKS, B.O.P. Unit Manager, MDC-
25 Brooklyn, H. WATTS, Administrator,
26 Bureau of Prisons, Central Office,
27 Washington, D.C.,
28
29 Defendants-Appellees.
30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
1 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Michael Poreda and Sarah A.
2 Geers (Jon Romberg, on the
3 brief), Seton Hall University
4 School of Law, Center for Social
5 Justice, Newark, NJ.
6
7 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: Kenneth Abell, Assistant United
8 States Attorney (Varuni Nelson,
9 Assistant United States
10 Attorney, on the brief), for
11 Benton J. Campbell, United
12 States Attorney, United States
13 Attorney’s Office for the
14 Eastern District of New York,
15 Brooklyn, NY.
16
17 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
18 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J.).
19
20 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
21 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
22 VACATED and the matter be REMANDED for further proceedings.
23
24 Plaintiff-appellant Elias Nuñez appeals from a judgment
25 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
26 of New York (Gleeson, J.), granting summary judgment in
27 favor of defendants-appellees. We assume the parties’
28 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
29 history, and the issues presented for review.
30
31 On September 8, 2006, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a
32 22-page Report and Recommendation recommending in relevant
33 part that “defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary
34 judgment should be denied as premature as the parties have
35 not had an opportunity to conduct discovery.” Defendants
36 timely filed objections and on December 12, 2007, the
37 district court entered the following order--reproduced in
38 full--granting summary judgment:
39
40 Because I respectfully disagree with Judge Bloom’s
41 conclusion that discovery would be useful, I
42 decline to adopt that portion of her Report and
43 Recommendation of September 8, 2006 that denies
44 the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
2
1 Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary
2 judgment is granted in its entirety.
3
4 The district court’s decision “is simply too spare to
5 serve as a basis for our review.” Beckford v. Portuondo,
6 234 F.3d 128, 130 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
7
8 Although we have repeatedly observed, in words or
9 substance, that we review a grant of summary
10 judgment de novo applying the same standard as the
11 district court, that does not mean that it is our
12 function to decide motions for summary judgment in
13 the first instance. We are dependent on the
14 district court to identify and sort out the issues
15 on such motions, to examine and analyze them, and
16 to apply the law to the facts accepted by the
17 court for purposes of the motion. We are entitled
18 to the benefit of the district court’s judgment,
19 which is always helpful and usually persuasive.
20
21 Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration
22 omitted). We therefore remand the matter “to the district
23 court for further consideration and a complete and
24 comprehensive decision.” Id.25
26 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
27 hereby VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further
28 proceedings consistent with this order.
29
30 FOR THE COURT:
31 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
32
33
3