Damry v. National Grid Natural Gas & Electricity et al

Filing 10

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); an d it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court forward the Proposed Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 9) to U.S. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel for initial review. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on April 28, 2016.***A copy of this order was served upon the pro se party by regular US mail. (sas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FAHEZA DAMRY, Plaintiff, -against- 1:16-cv-0267 (LEK/CFH) NATIONAL GRID NATURAL GAS & ELECTRICITY, et al., Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on April 5, 2016 by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 8 (“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. 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 & 306 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.”). “A [district] judge . . . 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). No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Plaintiff instead filed a Proposed Amended Complaint on April 25, 2016 in response to the Report-Recommendation. Dkt. No. 9. As the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none, the Court therefore adopts the Report-Recommendation in full. The Amended Complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice. Since Plaintiff has submitted a Proposed Amended Complaint, this is accepted as the operative pleading in this action and referred to Judge Hummel for initial review. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court forward the Proposed Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 9) to U.S. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel for initial review; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 28, 2016 Albany, NY 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?