LaPointe v. Ellis et al

Filing 18

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs amended complaint (Dkt. No. 8) is DISMISSED with prejudice, except that Plaintiffs claims under the New York Hum an Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq., against Ellis are dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing these claims in state court for non-monetary damages. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on August 31, 2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALBERT M. LAPOINTE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

1:16-CV-1441 (LEK/CFH)

DAVID ELLIS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a report-recommendation filed on July 10,
2017, 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. 17 (“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); 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.”). “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. Thus, 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. 17) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 8) is DISMISSED with
prejudice, except that Plaintiff’s claims under the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L.
§ 290 et seq., against Ellis are dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing these claims in
state court for non-monetary damages; 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.

DATED:

August 31, 2017
Albany, New York

2