Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180726_0001742.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:42:03+00:00

Document:
EMPLOYEES OF DOCCS C.O.'S J. CORDERO, M. DEJESUS, AND V. SMITH, Defendants.
NELSONS. ROMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff James McRae ("Plaintiff') commenced this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 29, 2015, based on an incident that occurred during his incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. (See Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Correctional Officers J. Cordero ("Cordero"), M. DeJesus ("DeJesus") and V. Smith ("Smith") (collectively, "Defendants") used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. (See Compl. at 4.) Currently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 44.) For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.
The following facts are drawn from the Complaint and its attachments, the parties' submissions, and the record.
A “court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); accord Benn v. Kissane, 510 Fed.Appx. 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2013) (summ. order).
Summary judgment is appropriate where a party who bears the burden of proof at trial “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “In such a situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must “constru[e] the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw[ ] all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Fincher v. Depository Tr. & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712, 720 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the nonmoving party “may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation.” FDIC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 607 F.3d 288, 292 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Further, “[s]tatements that are devoid of any specifics, but replete with conclusions, are insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Bickerstaff v. Vassar Coll., 196 F.3d 435, 452 (2d Cir. 1999).

References: V. 
 § 1983
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.