Hardee v. Thomas, 9:23-cv-01142

Plaintiff Stanley Hardee, an inmate, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer J. Thomas and two unknown officers, alleging constitutional violations.
Defendant Thomas moved for summary judgment, asserting that Hardee did not exhaust available administrative remedies as required.
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks for a report and recommendation.
Judge Dancks found the record incomplete regarding whether Hardee had administrative remedies available at the different facilities where he was housed.
The report concluded there were genuine factual questions about Hardee’s attempts to submit his grievance and appeal, making summary judgment premature.
No party objected to the report; the District Court adopted the recommendation and denied summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of administrative remedies	Claimed to have attempted to submit grievances and appeals	Hardee failed to exhaust, so suit is barred	Denied summary judgment;
	despite difficulty at several facilities		factual disputes preclude
			dismissal at this stage
Timing of summary judgment	Discovery needed before dispositive motions	Case not factually in dispute, so summary judgment fits	Discovery must be permitted

Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 201 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2000) (summary judgment is rarely appropriate before a plaintiff has had an opportunity for discovery)
DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (district court reviews R&Rs for clear error when no objections are filed)
Rivera v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 368 F. Supp. 3d 741 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (clear error standard for R&R review)