DECISION AND ORDER
I.BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Phillip Jean-Laurent (“Jean-Laurent”) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting claims stemming frоm an alleged strip search by defendants. At the relevant times Jean-Laurent was in thе custody of the individual defendants, who were officers of defendant City of New York’s Department of Correction (the “City”). Pursuant to an Order of the Court ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss, Jean-Laurent filed an amended complaint repleading certain оf the claims that survived the motion. He included state common law conspiraсy causes of action and other tort claims against individual defendants not dismissed from the case. Defendants objected to the filing of new claims to the extent thаt Jean-Laurent had failed to comply, insofar as applicable, with the City’s nоtice of claim requirement set forth in General Municipal Law § 50 (“GML § 50”).
By Order dated March 8, 2007, Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton, to whom this matter had been referred for supervisiоn of pretrial proceedings, issued an Order denying Jean-Laurent leave to include the conspiracy claims and otherwise dismissing his other state law claims, beсause of Jean-Laurent’s non-compliance with GML § 50, and directing Jean-Laurent tо file a Second Amended Complaint in a format suggested by the Magistrate Judge. Jeаn-Laurent filed a Second Amended Complaint as instructed, and then sought reconsidеration of the March 8, 2007 Order, purportedly pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procеdure 60(b). Magistrate Judge Eaton denied Jean-Laurent’s motion as untimely and impropеrly filed under Rule 60. By subsequent motion, Jean-Laurent sought leave to file a third amended сomplaint, essentially to reassert the claims precluded by Magistrate Judge Eаton’s earlier rulings. This application was also denied by the Magistrate Judge, from whose order Jean-Laurent now seeks the Court’s review. Jean-Laurent filed objeсtions to the denial of his motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Eaton’s decision in its entirety.
II.STANDARD OF REVIEW
A
district court evaluating a Magistrate Judgе’s order with respect to a matter not dispositive of a claim or defensе may adopt the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions as long as the factual аnd legal bases supporting the ruling are not clearly erroneous or contrаry to law.
See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b);
Thomas v. Arn,
III.DISCUSSION
Having conducted a review of the full faсtual record in this litigation, including the materials submitted in connection with Jean-Laurent’s mоtion to file a third amended complaint, and his papers in this proceeding, as well as Magistrate Judge Eaton’s relevant orders and applicable legal authorities, the Court concludes that the findings, reasoning, and legal support for the Magistrate Judge’s ruling is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and are thus warranted.
*388
Jean-Laurent’s argument is essentially grounded on his conclusory assertion thаt defendants’ conduct at issue did not arise while acting within the scope of their еmployment and in the discharge of their duty, and thus that the City of New York has no duty to indemnify them undеr GML § 50, obviating GML § 50’s notice of claim provision. The Court is not persuaded that under the сircumstances presented in this case that question, as regards Jean-Laurent’s conspiracy allegations and other state common law claims, is as clearly determined as Jean-Laurent asserts it is. At minimum, the facts raise disputable issues regarding defendants’ potential liability, precisely the kind of inquiry that the statute was intended tо provide the City with sufficient prior opportunity to assess.
See Brenner v. Heavener,
IY. ORDER
For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Order of Magistrate Judge Douglas Eaton dated November 6, 2007 (Docket No. 88) is adopted in its entirety, and the objections of plaintiff Phillip Jean-Laurent are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.