Engles v. Corigliano et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________
JESSIE ENGLES, a/k/a Jesse Engles,
Plaintiff,
9:23-CV-1056
v. (GTS/DJS)
BRANDI CORIGLIANO, N.P., Marcy Corr. Fac.;
HAMMAD U. RAHMAN, M.D., Upstate SUNY Med.
Ctr. Hosp.; DINELLO, Facility Health Svcs. Dir./
Physician, Auburn Corr. Fac.; SHEHAB ZAKI,
Physician, Marcy Corr. Fac.; and CHANGLAI,
Physician, Upstate SUNY Med. Ctr. Hosp.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
JESSIE ENGLES, 22-B-1293
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Clinton Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Dannemora, New York 12929
SUGARMAN LAW FIRM ALEXANDRA A. CALHOUN, ESQ.
Counsel for Defendant Changlai ZACHARY MATTISON, ESQ.
211 West Jefferson Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
HON. LETITIA JAMES AIMEE COWAN, ESQ.
New York State Attorney General Assistant Attorney General
Counsel for Defendants Corigliano,
Dinello, and Zaki
300 South State Street, Suite 300
Syracuse, New 13202
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Jessie Engles
Case 9:23-cv-01056-GTS-DJS Document 83 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 3

(“Plaintiff”) against Dr. Zaki and Nurse Practitioner Corigliano of Marcy Correctional Facility,
Dr. Dinello of Auburn Correctional Facility, and Drs. Rahman and Changlai of Upstate SUNY
Medical Center Hospital (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s
Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 68) be
stricken for failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1 of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court,
and that Defendant Changlai’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 75) be denied as moot. (Dkt. No.
77.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to
do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart’s
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-
Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation
is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons stated therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 77) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 68) be STRICKEN; and it is
1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995)
(Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which
no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
2
Case 9:23-cv-01056-GTS-DJS Document 83 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 3

further
ORDERED that Defendant Changlai’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 75) is DENIED as
moot.
Dated: November 5, 2025
Syracuse, New York
3
Case 9:23-cv-01056-GTS-DJS Document 83 Filed 11/05/25 Page 3 of 3