Mercer v. Harp et al
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 8 Magistrate Judge Treece's Report and Recommendation in its entirety; and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. The clerk is directed to forward this matter to Chief Judge Sharpe to determine whe ther to issue an order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any further actions in this District pro se without first seeking leave of the Chief Judge. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/25/15. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail & certified mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ARTHUR L. MERCER,
KEVIN HARP, Assist. Dist. Attorney, Ulster Cnty.;
and DONALD WILLIAMS, Cnty. Court Judge,
ARTHUR L. MERCER, #1646
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Ulster County Jail
Kingston, New York 12401
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in the above-captioned civil rights action filed pro se by
Arthur L. Mercer (“Plaintiff”) against the two above-captioned individuals (“Defendants”), is
United States Magistrate Randolph F. Treece’s Report-Recommendation and Order of January
23, 2015, which does three things: (1) denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
because of the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); (2) recommends that Plaintiff’s
Complaint be sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and it seeks relief from defendants who are immune from
suit; and (3) recommends that this matter be forwarded to Chief United States District Judge
Gary L. Sharpe for the issuance of an Order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any further actions
in this District pro se without first seeking leave of the Chief Judge because of Plaintiff’s
vexatious litigation history. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the ReportRecommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket
Sheet.) After carefully considering the matter, the Court can find no clear error1 in Magistrate
Judge Treece’s Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Treece employed the proper
standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No.
8.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the
reasons stated therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Treece’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter be forwarded by the Clerk of the Court to Chief Judge
Sharpe for a determination of whether to issue an Order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any
further actions in this District pro se without first seeking leave of the Chief Judge.
February 25, 2015
Syracuse, New York
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1.
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
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?