Ojo v. The United States of America et al

Filing 77

ORDER. The Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and dismisses the Amended Complaint. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 9/23/2019. (Valentin, Winnethka)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------OLUKAYODE DAVID OJO,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
16-CV-4112 (MKB) (LB)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JANE
DOE #1 (said name(s) being fictitious, the intent of
Plaintiff being to Designate female Lieutenant
officer(s) involved or present at the Scene of the
incident and Other Correctional Officers
Unknown), MDC LIEUTENANT FRANK
MALDONADO, ERIC ABDELLAH, STEDMAN
FERGUSON, CLARENCE ROSS, and JOHN
DOES #1−4 (said name(s) being fictitious, the
intent of the Plaintiff being to designate male
correctional officer(s) involved or present at the
scene of the incident, and “Other Correctional
Officers Unknown”),
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Olukayode David Ojo, proceeding pro se, commenced the above-captioned
action against Defendants the United States of America, Jane Doe #1, Metropolitan Detention
Center Lieutenant Frank Maldonado, Eric Abdellah, Stedman Ferguson, Clarence Ross, and John
Does #1–4 on July 25, 2016. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts claims against the
United States for false imprisonment, false arrest, assault, battery, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. (the “FTCA”). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 120–82,
Docket Entry No. 26.) Plaintiff also asserts claims against Maldonado, Abdellah, Ferguson,
Ross, John Does #1–4, and Jane Doe #1 for false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery,

failure to intervene, and violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeks
relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971). (Id. ¶¶ 183–245.) On September 21, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or,
in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Defs. Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ. J. (“Defs.
Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 59.) On April 8, 2019, the Court referred Defendants’ motion to
Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a report and recommendation. (Order dated Apr. 8, 2019.)
By report and recommendation dated August 15, 2019 (the “R&R), Judge Bloom
recommended that that the Court dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (R&R, Docket Entry No. 75.) Judge Bloom concluded
that any further amendment would be futile, and therefore recommended that the Court decline
to allow Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Id. at 31 n.9.)
No party has objected to the R&R.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommended ruling “may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a party submits a timely objection to a report and
recommendation, the district court reviews de novo the parts of the report and recommendation
to which the party objected. Id.; see also United States v. Romano, 794 F.3d 317, 340 (2d Cir.
2015). The district court may adopt those portions of the recommended ruling to which no
timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the
record. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. Neuman, No. 15-CV-1358, 2015 WL 7459920, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2015). The clear error standard also applies when a party makes only
conclusory or general objections. Benitez v. Parmer, 654 F. App’x 502, 503–04 (2d Cir. 2016)
(holding that “general objection[s] [are] insufficient to obtain de novo review by [a] district

2

court” (citations omitted)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (“[A] party may serve and file specific
written objections to the [magistrate judge’s] proposed findings and recommendations.”
(emphasis added)); see also Colvin v. Berryhill, 734 F. App’x 756, 758 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Merely
referring the court to previously filed papers or arguments does not constitute an adequate
objection under . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).” (quoting Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d
758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002))).
The Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R for clear error. Finding no clear error, the
Court adopts the R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and dismisses the
Amended Complaint.
Dated: September 21, 2019
Brooklyn, New York
SO ORDERED:

s/ MKB
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge

3