McFadden v. Connors

Opinion

TES DISTR KO SOLED LG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ss □□ WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUN 10 2025 ———--__§ ——__— ——se Yap, ow Wes~ = LoEWweNGUTY OF ew ROBERT MCFADDEN, RN DISTRIC

Plaintiff, v. 19-CV-766 (JLS) (LGF) LYNN CONNERS, DONALD BEECROFT, JOSEPH NOETH, ANDREW RAPINI, D. CRANE, and OFFICER NORDIN, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Robert McFadden commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. 1. McFadden alleges that, while he was confined at Attica Correctional Facility, Defendants—who are employees of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“‘DOCCS”)—violated his Eighth Amendment rights by serving him meals that did not comply with his medically restricted diet. See Dkt. 53.1 The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 29. Before the Court are the parties’ motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. 87 (Plaintiff); Dkt. 88 (Defendants). The parties opposed each other’s motions, see Dkt. 92-93, and replied in further their own motions. See Dkt. 94-95. On May 22, 2025, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. 96. He recommends that “Plaintiffs motion should be DENIED; Defendants’

1 The Amended Complaint (at Dkt. 53) is the operative Complaint.

motion should be GRANTED with regard to Defendants Beecroft, Conners, and Noeth, and DENIED as to Defendants Crane, Norton, and Rapini against whom the action should proceed to trial.” Id. at 4. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of

a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which

no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). This Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on that review, the Court accepts Judge Foschio’s recommendation. For the reasons above and in the R&R, Plaintiffs [87] motion is DENIED. Defendants’ [88] motion is GRANTED as to Defendants Beecroft, Conners, and Noeth, and DENIED as to Defendants Crane, Norton, and Rapini.

SO ORDERED. Dated: June 10, 2025 7] Buffalo, New York / □ a L. SINATRA, JR.—~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JU