Finney v. Farber et al

Filing 12

ORDER adopting 10 RECOMMENDED RULING. The Clerk is directed to close this file. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 3/9/2017. (Ghosh, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JOHN K. FINNEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. 3:16-cv-1677(VAB)(WIG)

JUDGE JAMES FARBER and
JUDGE MICHAEL WRIGHT,
Defendants.

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDED RULING
AND DISMISSING THE CASE
Plaintiff John K. Finney filed this lawsuit pro se on October 10, 2016. Defendants are two judges
in New Jersey Superior Court who presided over custody proceedings for Mr. Finney’s daughter, and,
allegedly aided and abetted in “interstate parental kidnapping.” Compl., ECF No. 1, 4. Plaintiff also filed
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Motion, ECF No. 2. As a portion of his review of that
motion, Magistrate Judge Garfinkel filed a Recommended Ruling, ECF No. 10, recommending that this
Court dismiss Mr. Williams’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a legally
cognizable claim. Mr. Finney has not filed an objection and the deadline for doing so has expired.
When a Magistrate Judge issues a recommended ruling to which no objection has been filed, the
Court adopts that ruling unless it contains “clear error.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
Galeana v. Lemongrass on Broadway Corp., 120 F. Supp. 3d 306, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (when no
objections are made to a recommended ruling, the Court may adopt that ruling unless it contains “clear
error”). In his recommended ruling, Magistrate Judge Garfinkel concluded that Mr. Finney’s complaint
should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it would be barred by the doctrine of
judicial immunity and because, even if it were not so barred, it failed to state a legally cognizable claim
against Defendants. The Court has reviewed the Recommended Ruling in this case and has not identified
any “clear error.” Accordingly, the Court adopts the well-reasoned Recommended Ruling, ECF No. 10,

and for the reasons stated in that Ruling, dismisses this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk
is directed to close this file.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of March at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE