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.)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?