Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140616_0001403.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-07-24 07:00:25
Document Index: 386726299

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 12101', '§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 1915']

| Patterson v. Westchester County
Patterson v. Westchester County
JAMES PATTERSON, Plaintiff,v.WESTCHESTER COUNTY, CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, NEW YORK CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, P.C., SERGANT GARRETT, SERGEANT BELL AND NURSE PRACTICIONER ASHA SAMUEL, Defendants.
PAUL A. CROTTY, Magistrate Judge.
Pro se Plaintiff James Patterson ("Patterson") brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., alleging violations of his constitutional rights arising from medical treatment for an ankle injury he suffered while incarcerated at the Westchester County Jail. (Dkt. No. 12: Am. Compl.) On January 22, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss. Patterson did not submit any opposition papers within the allotted time period.
On April 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Defendant's motions to dismiss be granted, [1] since Patterson's allegations failed to (1) satisfy the requirements of a § 1983 deliberate indifference claim; (2) allege a policy or custom which violated his constitutional rights; and (3) establish an ADA claim. The R&R recommended that any remaining state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice under United Mine Workers v. Gibbs. 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Patterson did not file any written objections to the R&R, and his time to do so has expired.
A district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where there are no "specific, written objection[s], " the court reviews an R&R for clear error. Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 956 F.Supp. 509, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Parties have fourteen (14) days from the service of a Report and Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2009); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Failure to file objections results in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); Ingram v. Herrick, 475 F.Appx. 793, 793 (2d Cir. 2012).
Here, since Patterson did not make any objections to the R&R, the court reviews the R&R for clear error. Finding none, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Peck's R&R in its entirety.
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Peck's R&R in its entirety, and accordingly grants Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court finds ...