govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-9_22-cv-00344-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
AKO K. BURRELL,
9:22-cv-344
Plaintiff, (GLS/ATB)
v.
D. McINTOSH et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
SUMMARY ORDER
The above-captioned matter comes to this court following a Report-
Recommendation and Order (R&R) by Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter,
which recommends that defendants’ summary judgment motion be
granted.  (Dkt. No. 41.)  Plaintiff Ako K. Burrell has timely objected to the
R&R.  (Dkt. No. 43.)
Burrell’s objection is two-fold and can be described as follows: (1)
Magistrate Judge Baxter’s “decision was rendered erroneously, improperly,
arbitrarily [and] capriciously;” and (2) Burrell “was not being afforded a
lawful grievance system” because defendants were allowed “to access the
grievance, read them, threaten plaintiff, deny him recreation, meals” and
other services in the correctional facility.  (Dkt. No. 43 at 2-3.)
Case 9:22-cv-00344-GTS-PJE     Document 51     Filed 09/27/23     Page 1 of 3
Burrell’s objection seeks to raise the same arguments already
addressed in the R&R.  (Dkt. No. 41 at 6-13; Dkt. No. 43.)  Accordingly,
Burrell’s objection is general and warrants review for clear error only.1  See
Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. CIV. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL
149049, at *4-5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006).
Having carefully reviewed the R&R and finding no clear error, it is
adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 41) is
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No.
20) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Burrell’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it
is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Summary Order to
1  Even if some portion of Burrell’s objection is specific and would,
therefore, warrant de novo review, the court would adopt the R&R under
that standard for substantially the same reasons as articulated therein.
2
Case 9:22-cv-00344-GTS-PJE     Document 51     Filed 09/27/23     Page 2 of 3
the parties in accordance with the Local Rules of Practice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 27, 2023
Albany, New York
3
Case 9:22-cv-00344-GTS-PJE     Document 51     Filed 09/27/23     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight