UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NEB MORROW, III,

Plaintiff,

-v- 9:19-CV-555

L. VANDERWERFF et al.,

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

NEB MORROW, III Plaintiff, Pro Se 10-A-6112 Sing Sing Correctional Facility 354 Hunter Street Ossining, NY 10562

HON. LETITIA JAMES STACY A. HAMILTON, ESQ. New York State Attorney General Ass’t Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY 12224

DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge

ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On May 9, 2019, pro se plaintiff Neb Morrow, III (“plaintiff”), an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), filed this

action alleging that defendants violated his civil rights. Dkt. No. 1 After an initial

review, Dkt. No. 8, plaintiff amended his complaint, Dkt. No. 15, and the parties proceeded to discovery on plaintiff’s § 1983 claim alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment rights. Thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 50.

On January 6, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that defendants’ motion be granted and that plaintiff’s operative complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 57. As relevant here, the R&R determined that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that

Vanderwerff or Tanea was personally involved in plaintiff’s removal from his work assignment. Id. The R&R further determined that under the Second Circuit’s decision in Tangreti v. Bachmann,

(2d Cir. 2020), plaintiff had failed to establish the personal involvement of Graham, Ost,

Bruen, Martuscello, Bellnier, McKoy, or Koenigsmann, the supervisory officials that had also been named as defendants. Dkt. No. 57. Plaintiff sought and received an extension of the deadline in which to lodge objections to the R&R. Dkt. Nos. 58, 59. Even so, he has not filed

any. Nor have defendants. The time period in which to do so has since expired. See Dkt. No. 59. Thus, upon review for clear error, the R&R will be accepted and adopted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. The Report & Recommendation is ACCEPTED; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and 3. Plaintiffs operative complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter

a judgment accordingly, and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2022 U.S. Disfrict Judge Utica, New York.

3.