Fabricio v. Annucci ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ EDERICK FABRIZIO, Plaintiff, 9:20-CV-0011 v. (GTS/ML) C.O. RIELLY; C.O. OLIVER; and C.O. LASTER, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: EDERICK FABRIZIO Plaintiff, Pro Se Calle 13-A-DD7 Villa del Rey IV Caguas, Puerto Rico 00727 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES DAVID C. WHITE, ESQ. Attorney General for the State of New York Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Ederick Fabrizio (“Plaintiff”) against the three above-captioned employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to Plaintiff’s excessive force and retaliation claims against Defendants Rielly and Oliver and denied with respect to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Laster. (Dkt. No. 69.) Neither party has filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Lovric’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation:! Magistrate Judge Lovric employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 69) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 60) is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's excessive force and retaliation claims against Defendants Oliver and Rielly (who are terminated from this action), and DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs retaliation claim against Defendant Laster. Dated: January 23, 2023 Syracuse, New York Glenn T. Suddaby ; U.S. District Judge When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a “clear error” review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” /d.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).