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)

Download PDF
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

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?