Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 14, 2022

Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:19-cv-03347
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Summary JudgmentCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections, Judge Liman adopted the recommendation, denying Williams’s motion and granting defendants’ motion except on two retaliation claims.

Who this affects

Alexander Williams, the N.Y.C. Department of Corrections and the other defendants, and specifically defendants Mathis and Wells on the retaliation claims.

What happened

Alexander Williams sued the N.Y.C. Department of Corrections and other defendants. A magistrate judge recommended denying Williams’s request for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ request for summary judgment, except for retaliation claims against Mathis and Wells.

Neither side objected to the recommendation within the required 14-day period. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.

Judge Lewis J. Liman adopted the recommendation in full. He denied Williams’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, except as to the retaliation claims against Mathis and Wells. The court also directed the clerk to close one docket entry and mail the order to Williams, who was representing himself.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections · No. 1:19-cv-03347
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Feb. 14, 2022

Background

On January 14, 2022, Magistrate Judge Cott issued a report and recommendation. It recommended that the court deny Alexander Williams’s motion for summary judgment and grant the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, except as to the retaliation claims against defendants Mathis and Wells. The opinion does not describe the factual basis of those claims.

Review of the Recommendation

The parties were given 14 days to submit written objections, but no objections were filed. Under the stated review standard, the district court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error because there were no objections. The court reviewed the record and found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Williams’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, except as to the retaliation claims against Mathis and Wells. The court directed the clerk to close Dkt. No. 156 and mail a copy of the order to Williams, whom the opinion identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.