Moorer v. Matthie et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
DEVONTE MOORER,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	9:25-CV-679 (AJB/DJS)
TROY MATTHIE et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
DEVONTE MOORER
Plaintiff, Pro Se
11-B-2591
Green Haven Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 4000
Stormville, NY 12582
HON. LETITIA JAMES 	OLIVIA R. COX, ESQ.
New York State Attorney General 	Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On May 27, 2025, pro se plaintiff DeVonte Moorer (“plaintiff”), an individual in the cus-
tody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”),
filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that various defendants violated his rights while he was
housed at Upstate Correctional Facility. 	Dkt. No. 1. 	Along with his complaint, plaintiff also
moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. Nos. 2, 4.
Case 9:25-cv-00679-AJB-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/08/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
On July 15, 2025, this Court granted plaintiff’s IFP Application and, after conducting an
initial review of his pleading, concluded that several of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims required a re-
sponse from defendants. Dkt. No. 6. In particular, the Court ordered a response as to plaintiff’s:
(1) Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure-to-intervene against defendants Rushlow,
Ramie, Doe #1, and Doe #2; (2) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against defendant
Rushlow; and (3) conspiracy claim against defendants Matthie, Rushlow, Ramie, Doe #1, and Doe
#2. See id. Plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed. Id.
On December 5, 2025, in lieu of an answer, defendants moved for summary judgment on
the basis of plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these
claims. Dkt. No. 27. Defendants also moved to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claim against
defendants Matthie, Rushlow, and Ramie. Id. That motion was fully briefed and referred to the
assigned magistrate judge. Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, 34, 36.
On April 9, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart advised by Report & Recom-
mendation (“R&R”) that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s conspiracy claim be granted but
that defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds be denied. 	Dkt. No. 37.
As Judge Stewart explained, defendants correctly argued that plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege
a § 1983 conspiracy claim. Id. However, Judge Stewart concluded that plaintiff’s filings raised a
factual question as to exhaustion, including as to whether “the processing and/or the availability
of the grievance process” was available to him under the circumstances presented, i.e., when he
was quickly transferred to a new facility within days of the alleged incident. Id.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 37. Upon review for clear error, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See FED. R.
C IV. P. 72(b).
Case 9:25-cv-00679-AJB-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/08/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 37) is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and partial motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 27)
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
3. Plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claims against defendants Matthie, Rushlow, and Ramie
are DISMISSED;
4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds is DENIED;
5. The following claims remain for discovery: (1) Eighth Amendment excessive force and
failure-to-intervene against defendants Rushlow, Ramie, Doe #1, and Doe #2; and (2) Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection claim against defendant Rushlow; and
6. The remaining defendants shall file an answer to the remaining claims in the operative
pleading (Dkt. No. 1) within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this opinion.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions and set a deadline
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
Utica, New York.
May 8, 2026
Case 9:25-cv-00679-AJB-DJS Document 38 Filed 05/08/26 Page 3 of 3