Cade v. The State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JEREMY CADE,

Plaintiff, 9:22-cv-751 (ECC/PJE) v.

CARRIE HART,

Defendant.

Appearances: Jeremy Cade, Pro se Plaintiff Brian W. Matula, Asst. Att’y General, for Defendant

Hon. Elizabeth C. Coombe, United States District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jeremy Cade commenced this action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of his incarceration at the Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Comstock, New York. Dkt. No. 1. On August 30, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) seeking to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. No. 30. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the motion for summary judgment was originally set for September 20, 2024. Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiff did not file a response despite receiving two extensions of time. Dkt. Nos. 33, 34. This matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista who, on July 15, 2025, issued a Report-Recommendation and Order recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. Magistrate Judge Evangelista advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Dkt. No. 37. No objections were filed. As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. For these reasons, it is ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 30, is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 30, is GRANTED, and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 12, 2025 1 1 OF Syracuse, New York Elizabeth C. Coombe U.S. District Judge