McDaniel v. The City of New York

CURTIS A. McDANIEL, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, SHIRLONDA GOLDEN, Shield No. 5890, IRWIN DELEON, Shield No. 1284, CAPTAIN SONIA MANZO, Shield No. 1360, Defendants.

No. 19 Civ. 8735 (KPF) (RWL)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

February 11, 2022

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Pro se plaintiff Curtis McDaniel brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that while he was a pretrial detainee at Rikers Island, Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety and certain correction officers used excessive force against him, all in violation of his constitutional rights. Defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Now pending before this Court is the January 21, 2022 Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Robert W. Lehrburger (the “Report” (Dkt. #86), copy attached), which recommends that Defendants' motion be granted in full.

The Court has examined the Report and notes that no party has objected within the fourteen-day period from its service, as provided by 28 U.S.C.

BACKGROUND

The Court incorporates by reference the recitation of the facts provided in the Report, to which no party objects. (See Report 2-3).

On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed the underlying complaint in this matter. (Dkt. #2). On November 22, 2019, this matter was referred to Judge Lehrburger for general pretrial supervision. (Dkt. #6, 9). On May 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading in this matter. (Dkt. #29). Three of the Defendants, the City of New York, Shirlonda Golden, and Sonia Manzo, answered the Amended Complaint on July 24, 2020. (Dkt. #34). On December 14, 2020 Defendant Irwin DeLeon filed his answer to the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. #48). Fact discovery concluded on March 25 2021. (Dkt. #58). Thereafter, on May 10, 2021 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #63-68), which motion the Court referred to Judge Lehrburger for a report and recommendation (Dkt. #69). Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant's motion on July 9, 2021. (Dkt. #73-76). Defendants filed their reply brief on August 28, 2021. (Dkt. #80).

On January 21, 2022, Judge Lehrburger issued the Report, recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. #86). The deadline for the parties to file objections to the report was February 4, 2022. (See Report 24-25). To date, no objections have been filed.

DISCUSSION

A court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1989). A court may also accept those portions of a report to which no specific, written objection is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous. See Ramirez v. United States, 898 F.Supp.2d 659, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citation omitted). A magistrate judge's decision is clearly erroneous only if the district court is “‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “A party's failure to object to a report and recommendation, after receiving clear notice of the consequences of such a failure, operates as a waiver of the party's right both to object to the report and recommendation and to obtain appellate review.” Grady v. Conway, No. 11 Civ. 7277 (KPF) (FM), 2015 WL 5008463, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2015) (citing Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992)).

As neither party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. See Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955 F.Supp.2d 201, 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Court has reviewed the Report and finds that its reasoning is sound and that it is grounded in fact and law. More specifically, the Court agrees with the Report's conclusions that: (i) Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence in support of his claim for municipal liability (Report 11-13); (ii) neither Manzo nor Golden had personal involvement in the alleged deprivations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights, as necessary to give rise to liability under Section 1983 (id. at 13-15); (iii) Plaintiff failed to establish that the circumstances of his incarceration posed a substantial risk of serious harm or that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to such a risk, both of which are necessary elements for a claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety (id. at 15-19); (iv) the record does not contain any evidence suggesting that Defendants applied excessive force to Plaintiff (id. at 19-22); and (v) Plaintiff's negligence claim fails because Defendants did not breach their duty to protect Plaintiff from impending harm (id. at 22-24). Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the Report in its entirety.

Furthermore, because the Report explicitly states that “[f]ailure to file timely objections will result in waiver of objections and preclude appellate review” (Report 25), both parties' failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review, see Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)).

CONCLUSION

The Court agrees completely with Judge Lehrburger's well-reasoned Report and hereby adopts its reasoning by reference. Accordingly, it is ordered that summary judgment be GRANTED in Defendants' favor in its entirety.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff at his address of record.

SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO HON. KATHERINE P. FAILLA SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Curtis McDaniel (“McDaniel”), proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against the City of New York (the “City”) and several Correction Officers: Captain Sonia Manzo (“Manzo”) and Officers Shirlonda Golden (“Golden”) and Irwin DeLeon (“DeLeon”) (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McDaniel alleges that while he was incarcerated at Rikers Island, the Defendants were negligent and deliberately indifferent to his safety and that certain correction officers used excessive force against him. Defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. 63.) For the following reasons, I recommend that Defendants' motion be GRANTED and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against McDaniel.

FACTS^[1]

At all relevant times, McDaniel was a pretrial detainee housed at the Anna M. Kross Correctional Facility (“AMKC”) at Rikers Island operated by the New York City Department Of Correction. (SOF ¶¶ 1-2.) When he entered AMKC on March 9, 2019, McDaniel was initially housed in the W18LB housing unit. (SOF ¶ 2.) Two weeks later, McDaniel was transferred within AMKC to a housing unit called Dorm 2 Upper. (Compl. at 5;^[2] SOF ¶ 8.)

On March 30, 2019, McDaniel had a physical altercation with N.O., another pretrial detainee, while they were in an area where phone calls could be made.^[3] N.O. demanded that McDaniel “sell” him his phone calls, which McDaniel refused to do. (Compl. at 5;

SOF ¶¶ 17-18.) N.O. followed McDaniel from the calling area to McDaniel's bunk and continued to “harass” and “threaten” him. (Compl. at 6; McDaniel Dep. at 91-92, 99.^[4]) N.O. insisted that the two go to the bathroom to fight. (McDaniel Dep. at 91; SOF ¶ 19.) Initially McDaniel refused, but he ultimately went to the bathroom and engaged in some kind of altercation with N.O.^[5] (Compl. at 6; SOF ¶¶ 19-25; McDaniel Dep. at 104.) McDaniel left the bathroom and walked into the dayroom followed by N.O., who “started screaming and yelling.” (Compl. at 7; SOF ¶ 26; McDaniel Dep. at 104.)

Another unidentified correction officer intervened by physically placing himself between McDaniel and N.O.^[6] The correction officer attempted to restrain N.O. but was unable to do so. N.O. lunged at McDaniel several times. Although McDaniel successfully pushed N.O away, N.O. was able to grab McDaniel. The two began to fight, and N.O. held McDaniel in a headlock. (Compl. at 3; SOF ¶¶ 27-34; McDaniel Dep. at 104-05.) The unidentified correction officer requested back up, and another correction officer entered the area and attempted to break up the fight. The officer grabbed McDaniel and pulled him away from N.O.; however, when he realized that N.O. had McDaniel in headlock, he ordered N.O. to release McDaniel, and N.O. complied. (Compl. at 3; SOF ¶¶ 38-41; McDaniel Dep. at 106.) The two men were separated, and McDaniel was removed from the dayroom. (Compl. at 7; SOF ¶ 43; McDaniel Dep. at 106.)

McDaniel claims that as a result of the incident he suffered a pulled neck muscle and injuries to his arm, head, and tongue. (Compl. at 8; McDaniel Dep. at 165.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 20, 2019, McDaniel filed his original complaint. (Dkt. 2.) McDaniel filed the operative Amended Complaint on May 28, 2020, which additionally named Defendants Golden and DeLeon.^[7] (Dkt. 29.)

The parties proceeded through discovery, which concluded on March 25, 2021. (Dkt. 58.) On May 10, 2021, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 63.) Defendants filed a declaration and a memorandum in support of the motion as well as a statement of undisputed...