Anaba v. The County of Suffolk et al
ORDER - There being no objection to Judge Browns 33 Report, it is herebyORDERED, that Judge Browns Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. The Court dismisses this action with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/11/2014. C/ECF Judgment Clerk, CI. (Coleman, Laurie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, DET. MARK
BENDETTI SHIELD NO. 1364, P.O. LLOYD
ALLEN, DET. LIEUTENANT MATT
SULLIVAN, DET. BRANDON O’HARA,
Law Office of Jon L. Norinsberg
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
225 Broadway, Suite 2700
New York, NY 10007
By: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq., Of Counsel
Suffolk County Attorney’s Office
Attorneys for the Defendants
P.O. Box 6100
H. Lee Dennison Building-Fifth Floor
100 Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, NY 11788
By: Arlene S. Zwilling, Assistant County Attorney
SPATT, District Judge.
On April 22, 2011, the Plaintiff Gibrine Anaba (the “Plaintiff”) commenced this action against
the Defendants County of Suffolk; Detective Mark Bendetti, Shield No. 1364; Police Officer Lloyd
Allen, Detective Lieutenant Matt Sullivan; and Detective Brandon O’Hara (the “Defendants”). The
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1988 for violations of his civil rights under the United States Constitution and the New
York State Constitution. In this regard, the Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he was falsely
arrested and maliciously prosecuted for allegedly raping his girlfriend.
On January 15, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown issued a sua sponte
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that this Court dismiss this action be
dismissed in its entirety. Judge Brown made this recommendation upon discovering that after a multiday hearing at which the Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters at issue here, the
New York State Family Court judge concluded that the Plaintiff did rape and assault his girlfriend in
front of their children. Accordingly, Judge Brown determined that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred
due to collateral estoppel, which precluded him from revisiting whether the rape and assault of his
girlfriend were fabricated. As a consequence, the Plaintiff could not argue that there was no probable
cause for his arrest or for his prosecution. To date, there have been no objections filed to the Report.
In reviewing a report and recommendation, a court “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).
“To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been
made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.”
Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing Nelson v. Smith, 618
F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). The Court has reviewed Judge Brownl’s Report and finds it to
be persuasive and without any legal or factual errors. There being no objection to Judge Brown’s
Report, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Judge Brown’s Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. The
Court dismisses this action with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
April 11, 2014
____/s/ Arthur D. Spatt____
ARTHUR D. SPATT
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?