Simon v. City of New York Department of Corrections
- John Cronan
- 1:18-cv-12063
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Simon v. City of New York Department of Corrections, Judge Cronan adopted the recommendation granting defendants’ motions against Simon’s claims.
Milton Simon’s federal § 1983 claims and state constitutional claims were resolved against him: summary judgment was granted on the federal claims, and the motion to dismiss was granted on the state claims. The defendants named in the action were Deputy Warden C. Johnson, Physician’s Assistant Gerard Auguste, Doctor Devour, Correction Officer M. Mills, Correction Officer A. Alvarez, and C.O. John Doe (Clinic-Post).
What happened
In Simon v. City of New York Department of Corrections, Milton Simon, representing himself, sued correctional and medical personnel under federal and state law. He alleged that other detainees assaulted him twice while he was held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center and that defendants failed to protect him or provide adequate medical care.
The defendants sought summary judgment on Simon’s federal civil-rights claims and dismissal of his state constitutional claims. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended granting summary judgment on the federal claims because Simon did not show a serious safety risk, objectively serious injuries, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, or evidence of a conspiracy. She also recommended dismissing the state claims because Simon’s notice of claim did not identify the individual defendants and because he filed too late.
No one objected to the recommendation, and Judge John P. Cronan independently reviewed it. Judge Cronan adopted the recommendation in its entirety, granting summary judgment on the federal claims and granting the motion to dismiss the state claims.
The detailed version
- Simon v. City of New York Department of Corrections · No. 1:18-cv-12063
- John Cronan
- Aug. 23, 2022
Background
Milton Simon, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Article 1, Section 6 of the New York Constitution. He sued Deputy Warden C. Johnson, Physician’s Assistant Gerard Auguste, Doctor Devour, Correction Officer M. Mills, Correction Officer A. Alvarez, and C.O. John Doe (Clinic-Post). Simon alleged that he was assaulted by other detainees at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on August 22, 2016, and October 26, 2016. The court understood his allegations to include failure to protect him from harm, deliberate indifference to his medical needs after the assaults, and conspiracy.
Motions and Report and Recommendation
Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The assigned magistrate judge, Sarah Netburn, recommended granting summary judgment on Simon’s § 1983 claims and granting the motion to dismiss his state claims.
For the federal claims, Judge Netburn concluded that Simon had not presented evidence creating a genuine factual dispute about whether defendants disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. She also concluded that the undisputed facts showed that the injuries from the assaults were not objectively serious; that, even if the injuries were serious, the evidence did not show deliberate indifference to Simon’s medical needs; and that Simon identified no evidence of a conspiracy between the alleged assailants and defendants.
For the state constitutional claim, Judge Netburn concluded that Simon’s notice of claim did not identify the individual defendants and therefore did not give them adequate notice. She also concluded that Simon filed the federal action more than one year and ninety days after the relevant claim accrued.
District Court’s Ruling
The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object would waive the right to object. No objections were filed, and the objection period expired. Despite that waiver, Judge John P. Cronan conducted a de novo review, meaning an independent review, of the recommendation. He found it well reasoned and well founded and adopted it in its entirety. The order therefore granted summary judgment as to the § 1983 claims and granted the motion to dismiss as to the state claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.