Summary
describing elements of retaliation claim arising under First Amendment as different than elements of access-to-courts claim arising under First Amendment
Summary of this case from Groves v. StateOpinion
9:05-CV-1427 (LEK/DRH).
March 30, 2007
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation and Order filed on March 14, 2007, by the Honorable David R. Homer, 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. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 23).
Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, 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), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation. Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 14) is GRANTED IN PART as to all moving Defendants in all respects as to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, and sixteenth causes of action; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED IN PART as to the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth causes of action; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.