Nuñez v. Hasty

08-0139-pr Nuñez v. Hasty, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL . 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 19 th day of April, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 AMALYA L. KEARSE, 9 GUIDO CALABRESI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 13 ELIAS NUÑEZ, 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant, 16 17 -v.- 08-0139-pr 18 19 DENNIS W. HASTY, Warden, MDC-Brooklyn, 20 MIDDLETON, Medical Supervisor, MDC- 21 Brooklyn, F. FRANCIN, Medical 22 Director, MDC-Brooklyn, M.E. RAY, 23 B.O.P. Northeast Regional Director, C. 24 SHACKS, B.O.P. Unit Manager, MDC- 25 Brooklyn, H. WATTS, Administrator, 26 Bureau of Prisons, Central Office, 27 Washington, D.C., 28 29 Defendants-Appellees. 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 1 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Michael Poreda and Sarah A. 2 Geers (Jon Romberg, on the 3 brief), Seton Hall University 4 School of Law, Center for Social 5 Justice, Newark, NJ. 6 7 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: Kenneth Abell, Assistant United 8 States Attorney (Varuni Nelson, 9 Assistant United States 10 Attorney, on the brief), for 11 Benton J. Campbell, United 12 States Attorney, United States 13 Attorney’s Office for the 14 Eastern District of New York, 15 Brooklyn, NY. 16 17 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 18 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J.). 19 20 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 21 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 22 VACATED and the matter be REMANDED for further proceedings. 23 24 Plaintiff-appellant Elias Nuñez appeals from a judgment 25 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 26 of New York (Gleeson, J.), granting summary judgment in 27 favor of defendants-appellees. We assume the parties’ 28 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 29 history, and the issues presented for review. 30 31 On September 8, 2006, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a 32 22-page Report and Recommendation recommending in relevant 33 part that “defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary 34 judgment should be denied as premature as the parties have 35 not had an opportunity to conduct discovery.” Defendants 36 timely filed objections and on December 12, 2007, the 37 district court entered the following order--reproduced in 38 full--granting summary judgment: 39 40 Because I respectfully disagree with Judge Bloom’s 41 conclusion that discovery would be useful, I 42 decline to adopt that portion of her Report and 43 Recommendation of September 8, 2006 that denies 44 the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 2 1 Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary 2 judgment is granted in its entirety. 3 4 The district court’s decision “is simply too spare to 5 serve as a basis for our review.” Beckford v. Portuondo, 6 234 F.3d 128, 130 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). 7 8 Although we have repeatedly observed, in words or 9 substance, that we review a grant of summary 10 judgment de novo applying the same standard as the 11 district court, that does not mean that it is our 12 function to decide motions for summary judgment in 13 the first instance. We are dependent on the 14 district court to identify and sort out the issues 15 on such motions, to examine and analyze them, and 16 to apply the law to the facts accepted by the 17 court for purposes of the motion. We are entitled 18 to the benefit of the district court’s judgment, 19 which is always helpful and usually persuasive. 20 21 Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration 22 omitted). We therefore remand the matter “to the district 23 court for further consideration and a complete and 24 comprehensive decision.” Id. 25 26 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 27 hereby VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further 28 proceedings consistent with this order. 29 30 FOR THE COURT: 31 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 32 33 3