Capolongo v. Brann
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-01469
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Capolongo v. Brann, Judge Caproni granted summary judgment to Brann and Yang and dismissed Capolongo’s COVID-19 constitutional-rights case with prejudice.
Antonio Capolongo’s constitutional claims against Cynthia Brann and Patsy Yang were resolved against him. The defendants received summary judgment, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Capolongo v. Brann, Antonio Capolongo claimed that Cynthia Brann and Patsy Yang failed to protect him from the risk of contracting COVID-19 while he was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center. He brought the case under a federal civil-rights law, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The defendants asked for summary judgment, which is a decision without a trial when the evidence does not show a real factual dispute requiring one. A magistrate judge recommended granting that request because Capolongo had not completed the required administrative process and, even if he had, had not shown enough evidence on the substance of his claims. Neither side objected.
Judge Valerie Caproni found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, and dismissed the case with prejudice. She also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, directed the clerk to close the case, and stated that the lack of objections barred appellate review.
The detailed version
- Capolongo v. Brann · No. 1:21-cv-01469
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 22, 2023
Background
Antonio Capolongo filed a complaint against Cynthia Brann and Patsy Yang under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against government officials for violating constitutional rights. The complaint alleged that, while Capolongo was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center from January 6 through May 26, 2021, the defendants failed to adequately protect him from the risk of contracting COVID-19. He alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Capolongo initially filed the complaint without a lawyer, but he was represented by counsel during discovery and while opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The defendants answered the complaint, the parties engaged in discovery, and the defendants later moved for summary judgment.
Report and recommendation
Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended granting the defendants’ motion. The recommendation stated that Capolongo failed to exhaust administrative remedies, meaning he did not complete the required grievance process before pursuing the lawsuit. The recommendation also concluded that, even if Capolongo had exhausted those remedies, he had not shown a genuine dispute of material fact on the merits of his claims.
The parties were given fourteen days to submit written objections. Neither party filed objections. When no objection is filed, the district court may adopt the recommendation if its review finds no clear error—a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.
Ruling
The court reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error. It adopted the recommendation in full, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Judge Valerie Caproni also ruled that the failure to object barred appellate review of the decision. She certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed with an appeal without prepaying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the open motions, close the case, and mail Capolongo a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.