Alves v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:24-cv-00425-JLS-MJR Document15- Filed 04/25/25 Page1of3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CINDY ALVES, as Administratix of the
Estate of CECIL ALVES, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

24-CV-425 (JLS) (MJR)

V.

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION; ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI,
Acting Commissioner of New York State
Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision, in his official capacity and
individually; NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF
MENTAL HEALTH; ANN MARIE
SULLIVAN, Commissioner of New York State
Office of Mental Health, in her official
capacity and individually;
SUPERINTENDENT CHRISTOPHER YEHL,
Superintendent, Wende Correctional Facility,
in his official capacity and individually; UNIT
CHIEF MARGARET STIRK, Unit Chief,
Wende Correctional Facility, in her official
capacity and individually; SGT. RENE
BUSTER, in her official capacity and
individually; DR. MELISSA M. DESA, in her
official capacity and individually;
CHISTOPHER ZALUSKI, counselor, in his
official capacity and individually; STEVEN
MAHER, in his official capacity and
individually, Office of Special Investigation,
and Wende Correction Officers; and JOHN
AND JANE DOES 1-5, in their official
capacity and individually,

Defendants.

Case 1:24-cv-00425-JLS-MJR Document15- Filed 04/25/25 Page2of3

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Cindy Alves, as Administratrix of the Estate of Cecil Alves,
commenced this action in state court—alleging several federal and state claims
against Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision (“DOCCS”), Anthony J. Annucci, New York State Office of Mental
Health, Ann Marie Sullivan, Superintendent Christopher Yehl, Unit Chief
Margaret Stirk, Sgt. Rene Buster, Dr. Melissa M. Desa, Christopher Zaluski, Steven
Maher, and John and Jane Does 1-5 (collectively, “Defendants”). See Dkt. 1-2.
Defendants removed the action. Dkt. 1.

On May 9, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 2. Plaintiff
responded (Dkt. 7), and Defendants replied. Dkt. 8. The parties appeared for oral
argument before Judge Roemer.! He then requested further briefing from the
parties. Dkt. 11. The parties submitted briefs, responding to the outstanding
issues. Dkt. 12-13.

On March 12, 2025, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs complaint, with leave to amend. Neither party filed objections.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations
of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district

court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s

1 This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer
for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 4.

2

Case 1:24-cv-00425-JLS-MJR Document15- Filed 04/25/25 Page 3of3

recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72
requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to
which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, and accepts and adopts Judge
Roemer’s recommendation.

For the reasons stated above, and in the R&R, this Court GRANTS
Defendants’ [2] motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint, with leave to amend, as

described in the R&R. This case is referred back to Judge Roemer for further

proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 25, 2025
Buffalo, New York )
f

(| wi ~~ \
JOHN L/SINATRA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE