stating that, in the Second Circuit, “an inmate’s transfer from a prison facility generally moots claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against officials of that facility”
How later courts described this case
- stating that, in the Second Circuit, “an inmate’s transfer from a prison facility generally moots claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against officials of that facility”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ATES DISTR]
KD FLED Lp
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT iS oA
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NOV 8 2022
Kap, oe
Wes €. LOEwENGUTY oc’
TERN DISTRICI
STONEY HARRISON,
v.
19-CV-151 (JLS) (LGF)
B.J. GABEL, KEVIN BROWN, AHMED
MUHAMMAD, AND STEWART
ECKART,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Stoney Harrison commenced this action on January 28, 2019. Dkt.
1. Pursuant to an Order issued by District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo on November
14, 2019 (Dkt. 3),! Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 380, 2019.
Dkt. 4. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under the First Amendment,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (“RLUIPA”) based on Defendants’ alleged refusal to allow
Plaintiff to wear his white shirt and bowtie while attending religious services. Jd.
On April 13, 2020, this Court referred the case to United States Magistrate
Judge Leslie G. Foschio for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and
(C). Dkt. 9. Following a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8) and a Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 13), this Court issued a Decision and Order dismissing
Plaintiffs RLUIPA claims for money damages against Defendants in their
1 The case was reassigned to the undersigned on February 14, 2020. Dkt. 6.
individual capacities as well as all damage claims against Defendants in their
official capacities. Dkt. 17.
On October 21, 2022, Defendants? Brown, Eckert, Muhammad, and Nelson
moved for Judgement on the Pleadings. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff opposed Defendants’
motion on November 12, 2021. Dkt. 18. Defendants did not file a reply.
On August 23, 2022, Judge Foschio issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 15) and
dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. Dkt.
19. On September 15, 2020, Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 22. Defendants
responded to Plaintiffs objections, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 24, 25.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations
of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court
must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P, 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72
requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to
which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1986).
2 Defendant B.J. Gabel is no longer a party to this action.
This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objection, response, and reply,
and the materials submitted by the parties. Based on its de novo review, the Court
accepts Judge Foschio’s recommendation.*
For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court GRANTS
Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. 15). As a result, the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED
without leave to amend.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 8, 2022
Buffalo, New York iy
Cam □□
JO L. SINATRA, JR. :
UMITED STATES DISTRICTIUDG
3 The Court further notes that, because Plaintiff is no longer housed at Wende, see
Dkt. 20, his claims are moot. See Booker v. Graham, 974 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.
2020) (stating that, in the Second Circuit, “an inmate’s transfer from a prison
facility generally moots claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against officials
of that facility”) (internal citations omitted).