Rainey v. Luther

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 9:23-cv-00027
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JAMARR RAINEY Plaintiff, -against- 9:23 CV-27 (LEK/TWD)

DEPUTY LUTHER, et al., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on July 31, 2025, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Dkt. No. 78 (“Report and Recommendation”). For the reasons given below, this Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jamarr Rainey files suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1383 for events that he alleges occurred while incarcerated at Mid-State Correctional Facility. See Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges misconduct by prison staff including sexual comments and touching, see id. at 39, being punched, id. at 62, and medical staff’s failure to report associated injuries, see id. at 72–73. This Court narrowed these claims and terminated several defendants from the case. See Dkt. No. 9 at 14. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint clarifying the identity of certain defendants. Dkt. No. 16; Dkt. No. 19. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgement, Dkt. No. 74, which the Report and Recommendation calls for granting in part. R. & R. at 2. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court

need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Urena v. People of State of New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609–10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). Clear error “is present when upon review of the entire record, the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Rivera v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 368 F.Supp.3d 741, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). IV. DISCUSSION No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to the Report- Recommendation. See Dkt. After carefully examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation evinces no clear error or manifest injustice. V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 78, is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force/sexual assault and failure to intervene claims against defendants Willoughby, Crego, Lewis, and Zegarelli be DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. No. 74, otherwise be DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk be directed to TERMINATE defendants Willoughby, Crego, Lewis, and Zegarelli as parties to this action; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 30, 2025 Albany, New York LAWRENCE E. KAHN United States District Judge