Mazzeo-Unum v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development District of Columbia et al

Filing 6

DECISION and ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 3) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Motion to proceed with this action in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that, given Plaintiffs pro se status, Plaintiff shall be afforded an opportunity to amend his Complaint within 30 days such that it complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and alleges actionable claims of misconduct or wrongdoing against Defendants; and it is further ORDERED, that should Plaintiff fail to so amend his Complaint this action shall be DISMISSED without further order of the Court. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on February 08, 2010. (sas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRUNO MAZZEO UNUM, Plaintiff, -againstUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. 1:09-CV-1420 (LEK/RFT) DECISION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January 14, 2010 by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 3). After thirteen days1 from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Plaintiff Mazzeo Unum ("Plaintiff"), which were filed on February 3, 2010. Objections (Dkt. No. 5). It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. 636(b). "A [district] judge... may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation 1 The court will accept Plaintiff's objections as timely as the court has the duty to show liberality toward pro se litigants. See Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam). 1 should be approved for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 3) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion to proceed with this action in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that, given Plaintiff's pro se status, Plaintiff shall be afforded an opportunity to amend his Complaint within 30 days such that it complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and alleges actionable claims of misconduct or wrongdoing against Defendants; and it is further ORDERED, that should Plaintiff fail to so amend his Complaint this action shall be DISMISSED without further order of the Court; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff by regular mail. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 08, 2010 Albany, New York 2

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?