Moore v. Samuel S. Stratten Veterans Administration Hospital

Filing 36

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 30 Report and Recommendations. ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 30) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall substitute Off icer Brunson for the John Doe defendant in this case; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs submissions (Dkt. Nos. 21, 22, 23) are DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 4/5/2017. (Copy served via regular mail)(khr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DAVID ALLEN MOORE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

1:16-CV-0475 (LEK/CFH)

SAMUEL S. STRATTON VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on
December 12, 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. 30 (“Report-Recommendation”).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s
report-recommendation, 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-857, 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), overruled on
other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. (SUNY) at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir.
2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-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.” (quoting Howell v.
Port Chester Police Station, No. 09-CV-1651, 2010 WL 930981, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15,
2010))). “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. Docket. The Court has therefore
reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 30) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall substitute Officer Brunson for the John Doe
defendant in this case; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s submissions (Dkt. Nos. 21, 22, 23) are DENIED in all other
respects; 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:

April 05, 2017
Albany, New York

2