Booker v. Flint ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ DIQUAN BOOKER, Plaintiff, 9:22-CV-0600 v. (GTS/ATB) SGT. FLINT; and OFFICER MURPHY, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: DIQUAN BOOKER, 16-A-1691 Plaintiff, Pro Se Greene Correctional Facility P.O. Box 975 Coxsackie, New York 12051 HON. LETITIA JAMES RACHAEL OUIMET, ESQ. Attorney General of the State of New York Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants Litigation Bureau 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 Diquan Booker (“Plaintiff”) against the above captioned corrections officers at Washington Correctional Facility (“Defendants”) asserting claims for excessive force and retaliation, are the following: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied as premature and for failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1(a) of the District’s Local Rules of Practice. (Dkt. Nos. 49, 64.) The parties have not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally, Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation:' Magistrate Judge Baxter 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 stated therein, and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 64) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 49) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Baxter for the setting of pretrial discovery and deadlines. Dated: July 19, 2023 Glenn T. Suddaby Syracuse, New York 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.” Id.; 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).