Burrell v. Uhler et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AKO K. BURRELL,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	9:22-CV-1178 (DNH/MJK)
DONALD UHLER et al.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On November 10, 2022, pro se plaintiff Ako K. Burrell (“plaintiff”), at
that time an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Cor-
rections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging that DOCCS officials violated his constitutional rights. 	Dkt.
No. 1. Along with his complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. Nos. 2, 3.
On February 15, 2023, this Court granted plaintiff’s IFP Application and,
after conducting an initial review of the pleading, determined that plaintiff’s
excessive force, medical-indifference, and retaliation claims survived initial re-
view and required a response from certain defendants. Dkt. No. 9. Thereafter,
Case 9:22-cv-01178-DNH-MJK Document 144 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
defendants answered the complaint, Dkt. No. 46, conducted some discovery,
see, e.g., Dkt. No. 75, and eventually moved for partial summary judgment,
Dkt. No. 127. That motion was fully briefed and referred to the assigned mag-
istrate judge for review and a decision. Dkt. Nos. 128, 129, 133, 137.
On February 17, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz advised
by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that defendants’ motion for summary
judgment be granted and plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed because plaintiff
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, including as to the
claims involving the non-moving defendants. See Dkt. No. 140.
Plaintiff has lodged objections. Dkt. No. 142. Broadly speaking, plaintiff
contends that Judge Katz applied the wrong legal standards and refused to
permit him to access discovery. 	See id. 	Upon de novo review, the R&R is ac-
cepted and will be adopted. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 140) is ACCEPTED;
2. 	Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 127) is
GRANTED; and
3. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter
a judgment accordingly, and close the file.
Case 9:22-cv-01178-DNH-MJK Document 144 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 9:22-cv-01178-DNH-MJK Document 144 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 3