Summary
finding that the defendant "ha[d] not met his burden of establishing that he would have filed the misbehavior report even in the absence of the protected conduct" because it was "disputed whether Plaintiff committed the prohibited conduct"
Summary of this case from Ross v. KoenigsmannOpinion
9:05-CV-0967.
June 18, 2009
DECISION ORDER
This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Hon. George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule N.D.N.Y. 72.3(c). The Report-Recommendation dated March 31, 2009 recommended that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (dkt. # 45) be denied, and that, to the extent that Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in his Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion (dkt. # 47), this motion also be denied. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed and the time to do so has expired.
Also on March 31, 2009, Magistrate Judge Lowe issued an Order requiring the Clerk to serve on Plaintiff "copies of the electronically-available-only opinions cited on pages 5, 7, 9, 11, 16, and 19 of the Report-Recommendation issued on March 31, 2009." Order, dkt. # 51 (citing Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009)).
After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein.
It is therefore,
ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (dkt. # 45) is DENIED. And it is further
ORDERED that, to the extent that Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in his Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion (dkt. # 47), this motion is also DENIED.