Medical/Surgical Group Trust v. NYS Energy Research and Development Authority et al

Filing 8

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendations (Dkt. Nos. 5, 7) are APPROVED and ADOPTED in their entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff Mazzeo Unum Rizzo Dix Snechlor, if he wishes to pursue this action, must file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order that remedies the deficiencies outlined in the Report-Recommendations; and it is further ORDERED, that if Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint as directed above, the Clerk shall enter j udgment indicating that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice without further order of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In that event, the Clerk is directe d to close this case; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff Medical/Surgical Group Trust, having failed to retain counsel in this action, is DISMISSED from this case. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on April 24, 2014.***A copy of this order was served upon the pro se plaintiffs by Certified US mail. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MEDICAL/SURGICAL GROUP TRUST
and MAZZEO UNUM RIZZO DIX
SNECHLOR,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

1:13-cv-1109 (LEK/CFH)

NEW YORK STATE ENERGY
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, INC.; et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following Report-Recommendations filed on December
6, 2013, and February 24, 2014, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. Nos. 5 (“First ReportRecommendation”); 7 (“Second Report-Recommendation”). Judge Hummel recommended that
Plaintiffs Medical/Surgical Group Trust and Mazzeo Unum Rizzo Dix Snechlor’s (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. See generally First Report-Rec.; Second
Report-Rec.; Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). No objections were filed. See generally Docket.
A district court must review de novo any objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation or specific proposed findings or recommendations therein and “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); accord FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); see also Morris v. Local 804, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
167 F. App’x 230, 232 (2d Cir. 2006); Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory,

perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need
review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
434 F. App’x 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011).
Upon review of the Report-Recommendation, the Court finds that it is not subject to attack
for clear error, and accordingly accepts and adopts it in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendations (Dkt. Nos. 5, 7) are APPROVED and
ADOPTED in their entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff Mazzeo Unum Rizzo Dix Snechlor, if he wishes to pursue this
action, must file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order that
remedies the deficiencies outlined in the Report-Recommendations; and it is further
ORDERED, that if Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint as directed above, the
Clerk shall enter judgment indicating that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice without further order of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. In that event, the Clerk is directed to close this case; and it
is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff Medical/Surgical Group Trust, having failed to retain counsel in
this action, is DISMISSED from this case;1 and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the Plaintiffs.

1

See Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Continental Record Co., 386 F.2d 426, 427 (2d Cir. 1967)
(“[I]t is settled law that a corporation cannot appear other than by its attorney.”).
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

April 24, 2014
Albany, New York

3