govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-9_21-cv-00107-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
_____________________________________________ 
  
LORENZO WOOD, 
  
    Plaintiff,    
        9:21-CV-0107 
v.          (GTS/ML) 
 
DANIELLE DILL; DEBORAH McCULLOCH; 
JEFFREY NOWICKI; ERICA SAXTON;  
GRACE SAXE; and PROVOW, 
 
    Defendants. 
_____________________________________________ 
 
APPEARANCES:      OF COUNSEL:   
 
LORENZO WOOD 
   Plaintiff, Pro Se 
1302 Lower Broadway, Apt. D8 
Schenectady, New York 12303 
 
HON. LETITIA A. JAMES     STEVE NGUYEN, ESQ.  
Attorney General for the State of New York   Assistant Attorney General 
   Counsel for Defendants  
The Capitol 
Albany, New York 12224 
 
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge 
DECISION and ORDER 
 
 Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Lorenzo 
Wood (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned employees at the Central New York Psychiatric 
Center (“Defendants”), are Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and United States 
Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ 
motion be granted in part and denied in part.  (Dkt. Nos. 31, 43.)  The parties have not filed an 
Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired.  ( See 
Case 9:21-cv-00107-ECC-ML     Document 44     Filed 01/23/23     Page 1 of 3
 2 
generally, Docket Sheet.)   
 After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Lovric’s 
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the 
Report-Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Lovric employed the proper standards, accurately 
recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts.  As a result, the 
Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons stated therein.    
     ACCORDINGLY, it is  
 ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 43) is 
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further 
 ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 31) is 
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in the following respects:  
(1) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Dill, McCulloch, Nowicki, Saxton, and Saxe are 
DISMISSED in their entirety, and these Defendants are terminated from this action; and   
(2) Plaintiff’s medical indifference claim against Defendant Provow regarding a 
cushioned chair accommodation is DISMISSED; and  
(3) Plaintiff’s medical indifference claim against Defendant Provow regarding a mattress 
accommodation SURVIVES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and it is further 
 ORDERED that this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Lovric. 
 
1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that 
report-recommendation to only a “clear error” review.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory 
Committee Notes: 1983 Addition.  When performing such a “ clear error” review, “the court 
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 
recommendation.”  Id .; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a 
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are 
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
Case 9:21-cv-00107-ECC-ML     Document 44     Filed 01/23/23     Page 2 of 3
 3 
Dated: January 23, 2023       
       Syracuse, New York    
    
 
 
     
   
 
Case 9:21-cv-00107-ECC-ML     Document 44     Filed 01/23/23     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight