Willie Bright v. D. McIntosh et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in Willie Bright’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court granted the moving defendants’ partial summary judgment motion and dismissed nine claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and it granted in part and denied in part the partial motion to dismiss. The court also denied the plaintiff’s pending procedural and appointment-of-counsel requests and terminated certain defendants.

Holdings

1. Specific objections require de novo review of the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation; absent specific objections, or when objections merely rehash prior arguments, the district court reviews for clear error.
2. Partial summary judgment was proper because Bright failed to exhaust administrative remedies for nine claims, and his unsupported general assertions did not create a genuine dispute of material fact or establish an applicable exception to exhaustion.
3. The Fifth Retaliation Claim against Savage, Cleveland, Scott, and Gillani was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, while the partial motion to dismiss was otherwise denied to the extent the challenged claims were plausibly alleged.
4. An evidentiary hearing was unnecessary because the summary-judgment record did not present a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Bright’s failure to exhaust.
5. The magistrate judge’s nondispositive orders were upheld because they were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and there was no abuse of discretion or prejudice to Bright.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge’s recommendations concerning administrative exhaustion were clearly erroneous when the record showed that Bright failed to submit or complete the required grievance procedures for nine claims.
2. Whether Bright’s general objections required de novo review or instead warranted clear-error review.
3. Whether Bright plausibly stated a retaliation claim against Savage, Cleveland, Scott, and Gillani.
4. Whether the magistrate judge abused his discretion or acted contrary to law in resolving the plaintiff’s nondispositive procedural requests and discovery-related arguments.
5. Whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve the exhaustion issue.

Disposition

other