Morales v. Department of Corrections

S.D. New York

Morales v. Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 4, 2023·No. 1:20-cv-10126·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 01/04/ 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X JONATHAN MORALES, : : Plaintiff, : 20-CV-10126 (VEC) : -against- : ORDER ADOPTING : REPORT & CYNTHIA BRANN, PATSY YANG, and : RECOMMENDATION MARGARET EGAN, : : Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------------- X VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS on March 9, 2021, Plaintiff Jonathan Morales (“Morales”) filed a Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) against the then-Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction, the Senior Vice President of Correctional Health Services, and the Executive Director of the New York City Board of Correction (“Defendants”), alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was a pretrial detainee at the Vernon C. Bain Center (the “VCBC”) because of Defendants’ failure to mitigate adequately the threat of COVID-19 at the VCBC,1 see SAC, Dkt. 10; WHEREAS on March 12, 2021, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Aaron for general pretrial management and for the preparation of reports and recommendations (“R&Rs”) on any dispositive motions, see Order, Dkt. 11; WHEREAS at some point prior to April 14, 2021, Plaintiff was released from custody, see Order, Dkt. 18; WHEREAS fact discovery concluded on March 15, 2022, see Order, Dkt. 43; 1 Plaintiff originally sued Defendants alongside other detainees in an amended complaint dated November 20, 2020. See Am. Compl., Dkt. 2. On December 1, 2020, the Court severed the matter into separate civil actions. See Order, Dkt. 1. On February 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend. See Order, Dkt. 9. WHEREAS in or around April 2022, Plaintiff was detained again at a different facility, see Order, Dkt. 47; WHEREAS on June 30, 2022, Defendants moved for summary judgment, see Defs. Not. of Mot., Dkt. 52;

WHEREAS, to date, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion nor sought an extension to oppose the motion despite receiving a sua sponte extension from the Court, see Order, Dkt. 67; WHEREAS on December 15, 2022, Judge Aaron entered an amended R&R (the “Amended R&R”) recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted, see Amended R&R, Dkt. 692; WHEREAS in the Amended R&R, Judge Aaron notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), they had fourteen days to file written objections to the Amended R&R, id. at 15; WHEREAS Judge Aaron further notified the parties that failure to file objections would

result in both the waiver of objections and the preclusion of appellate review, id.; WHEREAS no objections were filed by either party; WHEREAS in reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); WHEREAS when, as here, no party objects to the R&R, the Court may accept the R&R provided that “there is no clear error on the face of the record[,]” Heredia v. Doe, 473 F. Supp.

2 Judge Aaron originally entered an R&R on December 14, 2022 with the same recommendation but a different rationale for dismissing claims against Defendants in their official capacities. Compare R&R, Dkt. 68, at 10 n.4 with Amended R&R, Dkt. 69, at 10 n.4. The amendment does not affect this Order. 2d 462, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Ne/son v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s notes; WHEREAS an error is clear when the reviewing court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed[,]” see Cosme v. Henderson, 287 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20 (1954)); and WHEREAS careful review of the well-reasoned Amended R&R reveals that there is no clear error; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended R&R is adopted in full, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in full, and the case is closed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the Amended R&R gave the parties adequate warning, see Amended R&R at 15, the failure to file any objections to the R&R precludes appellate review of this decision. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”) (citation omitted). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all open motions and to close this case.

SO ORDERED. « * Veh. (oye Date: January 4, 2023 VALERIE CAPRONI New York, New York United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 01/04/ 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X JONATHAN MORALES, : : Plaintiff, : 20-CV-10126 (VEC) : -against- : ORDER ADOPTING : REPORT & CYNTHIA BRANN, PATSY YANG, and : RECOMMENDATION MARGARET EGAN, : : Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------------- X VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS on March 9, 2021, Plaintiff Jonathan Morales (“Morales”) filed a Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) against the then-Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction, the Senior Vice President of Correctional Health Services, and the Executive Director of the New York City Board of Correction (“Defendants”), alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was a pretrial detainee at the Vernon C. Bain Center (the “VCBC”) because of Defendants’ failure to mitigate adequately the threat of COVID-19 at the VCBC,1 see SAC, Dkt. 10; WHEREAS on March 12, 2021, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Aaron for general pretrial management and for the preparation of reports and recommendations (“R&Rs”) on any dispositive motions, see Order, Dkt. 11; WHEREAS at some point prior to April 14, 2021, Plaintiff was released from custody, see Order, Dkt. 18; WHEREAS fact discovery concluded on March 15, 2022, see Order, Dkt. 43; 1 Plaintiff originally sued Defendants alongside other detainees in an amended complaint dated November 20, 2020. See Am. Compl., Dkt. 2. On December 1, 2020, the Court severed the matter into separate civil actions. See Order, Dkt. 1. On February 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend. See Order, Dkt. 9. WHEREAS in or around April 2022, Plaintiff was detained again at a different facility, see Order, Dkt. 47; WHEREAS on June 30, 2022, Defendants moved for summary judgment, see Defs. Not. of Mot., Dkt. 52;

WHEREAS, to date, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion nor sought an extension to oppose the motion despite receiving a sua sponte extension from the Court, see Order, Dkt. 67; WHEREAS on December 15, 2022, Judge Aaron entered an amended R&R (the “Amended R&R”) recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted, see Amended R&R, Dkt. 692; WHEREAS in the Amended R&R, Judge Aaron notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), they had fourteen days to file written objections to the Amended R&R, id. at 15; WHEREAS Judge Aaron further notified the parties that failure to file objections would

result in both the waiver of objections and the preclusion of appellate review, id.; WHEREAS no objections were filed by either party; WHEREAS in reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); WHEREAS when, as here, no party objects to the R&R, the Court may accept the R&R provided that “there is no clear error on the face of the record[,]” Heredia v. Doe, 473 F. Supp.

2 Judge Aaron originally entered an R&R on December 14, 2022 with the same recommendation but a different rationale for dismissing claims against Defendants in their official capacities. Compare R&R, Dkt. 68, at 10 n.4 with Amended R&R, Dkt. 69, at 10 n.4. The amendment does not affect this Order. 2d 462, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Ne/son v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s notes; WHEREAS an error is clear when the reviewing court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed[,]” see Cosme v. Henderson, 287 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20 (1954)); and WHEREAS careful review of the well-reasoned Amended R&R reveals that there is no clear error; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended R&R is adopted in full, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in full, and the case is closed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the Amended R&R gave the parties adequate warning, see Amended R&R at 15, the failure to file any objections to the R&R precludes appellate review of this decision. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”) (citation omitted). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all open motions and to close this case.

SO ORDERED. « * Veh. (oye Date: January 4, 2023 VALERIE CAPRONI New York, New York United States District Judge

Morales v. Department of Corrections, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Morales v. Department of Corrections (Morales v. Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related