Rolle v. Girardi
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Judge Shields' R&R (Docket Entry 16) is ADOPTED in its entirety and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/4/2016. C/M;C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
NEHEMIAH ROLLE,
Plaintiff,
-against-
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-CV-1745 (JS)(AYS)
JOSEPH GIRARDI,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Nehemiah Rolle, pro se
909 3rd Avenue 6096
New York, NY 10150
For Defendant:
Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq.
Ralph Pernick, Esq.
New York State Attorney General
200 Old County Road, Suite 240
Mineola, NY 11501
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending
before
the
Court
is
Defendant
Judge
Joseph
Girardi’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss the Complaint (Docket
Entry
9)
and
Recommendation
Magistrate
(“R&R”),
Judge
Anne
recommending
Y.
Shields’
that
this
Report
Court
and
grant
Defendant’s motion. (Docket Entry 16.) For the following reasons,
the Court ADOPTS Judge Shields’ R&R in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Nehemiah Rolle (“Plaintiff”) commenced
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 1983 and 1985, claiming that
Defendant,
a
Nassau
County
District
Court
Judge,
unlawfully
deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteen, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Compl.)
(See Generally
Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint on April 30,
2015, and the Court referred Defendant’s motion to Judge Shields
for an R&R on whether the motion should be granted.
(Docket Entry
14.)
On December 30, 2015, Judge Shields issued her R&R.
(Docket Entry 16.)
The R&R recommends that the Court grant
Defendant’s motion and dismiss this case because judges have
absolute immunity for acts performed in their judicial capacity,
and all of Plaintiff’s claims stem from actions Defendant took in
his role as a judge.
(R&R at 7, 9.)
On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to Judge
Shields’
R&R
(Objections,
Docket
Entry
20.)
Specifically,
Plaintiff objects to Judge Shields’ jurisdiction over this1 case
and argues that Judge Shields misapplied the doctrine of judicial
immunity.
(See Objections at 1, 7.)
DISCUSSION
“When evaluating the report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge, the district court may adopt those portions of
the report to which no objections have been made and which are not
The Court need not address Plaintiff’s jurisdictional argument
because Defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly referred to
Judge Shields for and R&R on October 13, 2015 pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
1
2
facially erroneous.”
Walker v. Vaughan, 216 F. Supp. 2d 290, 291
(S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citation omitted).
A party may serve and file
specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation within fourteen days of receiving the recommended
disposition.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2).
Upon receiving any
timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the
district “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
28
A party
that objects to a report and recommendation must point out the
specific portions of the report and recommendation to which they
object.
See Barratt v. Joie, No. 96-CV-0324, 2002 WL 335014, at
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2002) (citations omitted).
When a party raises an objection to a magistrate judge’s
report, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any contested
sections of the report.
815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
or
general
objections,
See Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp.
But if a party “makes only conclusory
or
simply
reiterates
his
original
arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only
for clear error.”
Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51
(E.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Furthermore, even in a de novo review of a party’s specific
objections, the Court ordinarily will not consider “arguments,
case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but
3
[were]
not,
instance.”
presented
to
the
magistrate
judge
in
the
first
Kennedy v. Adamo, No. 02-CV-1776, 2006 WL 3704784, at
*1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
II.
Defendant’s Objection
Defendant principally objects to the R&R on the grounds
that Judge Shields applied the doctrine of judicial immunity too
broadly.
The Court disagrees.
“Section 1983 suits for damages are absolutely barred
against judicial actors for actions performed in their official
capacities.” Hodges v. Mangano, 28 F. App’x 75, 77 (2d Cir. 2002);
Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Judges enjoy
absolute immunity from personal liability for ‘acts committed
within their judicial jurisdiction.’”) (quoting Pierson v. Ray,
386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S. Ct. 1213, 1217, 18 L. Ed. 2d 288 (1967).
Judge are absolutely immune for their official acts, because
“[w]ithout insulation from liability, judges would be subject to
harassment and intimidation and would thus ‘lose that independence
without which no judiciary can either be respectable or useful.’”
Id. (quoting Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 509, 98 S. Ct. 2894,
2912, 57 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1978)).
Here, Judge Shields correctly
outlined in her R&R that the offending actions Defendant took
during the trial at issue were all undertaken in his official
capacity as a Judge.
(See R&R at 2-3.)
4
Plaintiff cannot point to
any specific conduct in the Complaint to which the doctrine of
judicial
immunity
would
not
apply.
Therefore,
Plaintiff’s
Objection is OVERRULED and Judge Shields’ R&R is adopted in its
entirety.
II.
Leave to Amend
The Second Circuit has stated that “[w]hen a motion to
dismiss is granted, the usual practice is to grant leave to amend
the complaint.” Hayden v. Cnty. of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 53 (2d
Cir.1999); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should
freely
give
leave
[to
amend]
when
justice
so
requires.”).
“Nonetheless, courts may deny leave to replead where amendment
qualifies as futile.”
Herbert v. Delta Airlines, No. 12–CV–1250,
2014 WL 4923100, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014) (citing Cuoco v.
Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)).
Here, since all of
Plaintiff’s claims relate to the actions that a judge took acting
in his official capacity, leave to amend is DENIED as futile.
CONCLUSION
Judge Shields’ R&R (Docket Entry 16) is ADOPTED in its
entirety and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk of
the Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March
4 , 2016
Central Islip, New York
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
5
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?