Stegemann v. Rensselaer County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 7

ORDER: Adopting the #5 Report and Recommendations. It is ORDERED that the Plaintiff's objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel are OVERRULED and that the Report-Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED. The Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as noted further herein. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on February 19, 2015. (rep)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
JOSHUA G. STEGEMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:15-CV-21

RENSSELAER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________

DECISION & ORDER

Thomas J. McAvoy, Senior District Judge.
This pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown
Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and other f ederal and state statutes,
alleges violations of Plaintiff’s rights in a search and seizure of his property by agents
during a drug raid. The matter was referred to Christian F. Hummel, United States
Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Rule 72.3(c).
In the Report-Recommendation, dated February 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge
Hummel recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. See dkt. # 5.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When objections to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are
lodged, the Court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or
1

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which the objection is made.” See 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the
Plaintiff’s objections, this Court has determined to accept the recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Hummel for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Plaintiff’s Objections, dkt. # 6 to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Hummel, dkt. # 5, are hereby OVERRULED;
(2) The Report-Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED;
(3) The Plaintiff’s Complaint, dkt. # 1, is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2015

2