Mazzeo v. Department of Taxation and Finance et al

Filing 5

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on August 6, 2014. ***A copy of this order was served upon the pro se plaintiff by Certified US mail. (sas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNUM ETAL MAZZEO, Plaintiff, -against- 1:14-CV-0391 (LEK/RFT) DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________ ORDER This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on July 9, 2014, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 4 (“Report-Recommendation”). Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). 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); Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (“[E]ven a pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument.”). No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. The Court therefore reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court close this case; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 06, 2014 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?