LaPointe v. Ellis et al
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend; Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on April 05, 2017. (Copy served via regular mail)(sas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALBERT M. LaPOINTE,
DAVID ELLIS, et al.,
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on
December 13, 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. 4 (“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. 4) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to
amend;1 and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 05, 2017
Albany, New York
The Court notes that Plaintiff has already filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 8,
which is hereby referred to Judge Hummel for initial review.
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?