Pickering-George v. City, Counties, Districts, of New York State et al

Filing 16

DECISION AND ORDER. The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Hummel's 10 Report-Recommendation and Order in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 191 5A for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because Plaintiff has already filed an Amended Complaint following Magistrate Judge Hummel's review of the intial Complaint, and because Plaintiff appears to have no facts that w ould establish a plausible claim for relief, the dismissal is with prejudice. Plaintiff's 13 motion seeking "an official record-certificate of official record...in accord with RICO Act and Anti-Racketeering Act motions", and his [14 ] "Application for Order to Show Cause - alleged contempt for disobeying subpoena to appear as trial witness in accord with RICO Act and Anti-Racketeering Act Motions" are DENIED as moot. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 8/20/2014. (dpk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________
JOHN PICKERING-GEORGE,
(adopted) John R. Daley, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:13-CV-458

CITY, COUNTIES, DISTRICTS OF NEW YORK
STATE; COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM;
UNITED STATES AGENCY; UNITED STATES
OFFICIAL COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM;
ADMINISTRATION AGENCY, DIRECTOR,
MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL, JUDICIAL,
INDIVIDUAL, ENTITIES, CAPACITY, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
THOMAS J. McAVOY
Senior United States District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This pro se action was referred by this Court to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel,

United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§636(b) and Local Rule N.D.N.Y. 72.3(c).
In his Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. #10), Magistrate Judge Hummel
ordered that Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis application (Dkt. #2) be granted, and
recommended that the entire complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §
1915A for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff filed objections
to the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. # 11).
1

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are lodged,

the district court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.
1997) (The Court must make a de novo determination to the extent that a party makes
specific objections to a magistrate’s findings.).
III.

DISCUSSION
The Court is mindful that Petitioner is proceeding pro se. As such, on de novo

review the Court construes his claims liberally and reads them “to raise the strongest
arguments that they suggest.” Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996).
Having reviewed his Amended Complaint, and having reviewed Plaintiff’s nearly
incomprehensible objections, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Hummel’s
recommendation for the reasons stated in his report.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge

Hummel’s Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. # 10) in its entirety. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §
1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because Plaintiff has
already filed an Amended Complaint following Magistrate Judge Hummel’s review of the
initial Complaint, and because Plaintiff appears to have no facts that would establish a
plausible claim for relief, the dismissal is with prejudice. See Tafari v. McCarthy, 714 F.

2

Supp. 2d 317, 339 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (explaining that even where the plaintiff is pro se “an
opportunity to amend is not required where the plaintiff has already amended the
complaint [or] . . . where the problem with the plaintiff’s causes of action is substantive
such that better pleading will not cure it.”) (internal punctuation marks and quotations
omitted).
Plaintiff’s motion seeking “an official record-certificate of official record . . . in
accord with RICO Act and Anti-Racketeering Act motions” (Dkt # 13), and his “Application
for Order to Show Cause - alleged contempt for disobeying subpoena to appear as trial
witness in accord with RICO Act and Anti-Racketeering Act Motions” (Dkt. # 14) are
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:August 20, 2014

3