Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiff Paul Smith, pro se, filed 42 U.S.C. §1983 and ADA claims in the Northern District of New York.
- Defendants are G. Wilson, Dumas, and Lira, officials of DOCCS, sued for disability accommodations.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing failure to exhaust and merits defenses, including qualified immunity.
- Magistrate Judge Treece recommended dismissal on exhaustion and merits after considering evidence.
- Plaintiff did not respond to the motion or Court communications regarding consequences of failure to respond.
- Court adopted the magistrate’s Report in full, granting summary judgment and dismissing the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for ADA claim | ADA exhaustion not satisfied | Plaintiff failed to exhaust before filing suit | Exhaustion not satisfied; merits dismissal |
| Merits of ADA claim | Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodation | No genuine dispute on material facts; no violation shown | ADA claim dismissed on merits |
| Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim | Actions alleged as punishment violated Eighth Amendment | No viable Eighth Amendment claim supported by evidence | Eighth Amendment claim dismissed |
| First Amendment claim viability | Constitutional rights violated by actions of defendants | No actionable First Amendment interference shown | First Amendment claim dismissed |
| Qualified immunity and summary judgment posture | Defense should proceed to trial; contested facts | Qualified immunity and merits support dismissal | Summary judgment granted; case dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2003) (failure to object to magistrate report waives appellate review; notice requirements)
- Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 299 (2d Cir. 1992) (pro se notice and waiver of review requirements; Objecting rules)
- Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (pro se pleading standards and review of magistrate decisions)