Damry v. National Grid Natural Gas & Electricity et al

Filing 12

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs proposed Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 9) is DISMISSED with prejudice and without opportunity to amend before this court, but without prejudice to Plaintiff commencing an action in the appropriate state court. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on June 28, 2016.***A copy of this order & subsequent judgment was served upon the pro se party by Certified US Mail & Regular US Mail. (sas)

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 June 2,
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. 11 (“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. Accordingly, the Court
has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 9) is DISMISSED
with prejudice and without opportunity to amend before this court, but without prejudice to
Plaintiff commencing an action in the appropriate state court; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

June 28, 2016
Albany, NY

2