Georges v. Duchene et al
Filing
5
DECISION and ORDER - That the 4 Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. This action shall be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) unless, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order plaintiff files an amended co mplaint that corrects the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation. If plaintiff filed an amended complaint with the referenced thirty (30) day period, then the amended complaint shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for his review. If, however, plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the referenced thirty (30) day period, then this action shall be dismissed without further order. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/13/2017. (Copy served via regular mail)(jel, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------AGNES GEORGES,
Plaintiff,
-v-
MOISE DUCHENE; JN PIERRE HEUNAUSD;
MARIE EDITH JOSEPH; RENALD THOMAS;
FELIX PHILLIPE; ANDRE DORRIL; BRIAN
MOORE; BEVERLY THOMAS; JOE THOMAS;
YVES P. LAGUERRE; YVES VICIERE; LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAITI; JEH JOHNSON; JOHN
KANNENGEISER; MICHAEL J. BERELLI; FOX
NEWS/WASHINGTON POST; SANDERS AND
SANDERS LAW FIRM; DAVID LEATHER;
MARK CROSSLAND; EVERY LEGAL
LAWYER; PUBLIC; LEVY RATNER
COMPANY; MARK ZUCKERBERG, Facebook
Owner; JACKIE ROBINSON, NYS Thoma PS
15; JAY DIETZ COURT REPORTING; NALIA
MILIEN; PHILLY MILIEN; THOMAS
CHARIANE; S. MERCADO; MARIA AGARIN;
VITAL MILIEN; SOPHONIE LEGER, as
Primese; HOWARD, Dispatcher Checker Cab In
Elmont; KIRKLAND GALEN; YODORA P.
BOOKS; PHILLIS B. AGGREY; BILL PERKINS;
CONGRESS; DA OFFICE NY STATE, Nassau,
Mineola, NY; LABOR UNEMPLOYMENT, New
York and Virginia; SOCIAL SERVICES, New
York and Virginia; MATIM, MXO, JAMESON,
REGINALD; MOTOR VEHICLE, Albany, New
York and Virginia; MCBLADE; COMCAST
BUSINESS; DOCTOR MISLHA; DOCTOR
ARABSHAHI; DOCTOR LATEEF; DOCTOR
RASHID; DOCTOR MEHTA SARJACK;
EVELYN PORTILO; DOCTOR KESSLER
DALMACY; DOCTOR DARGANI; DOCTOR
AGARIN MARIA; DOCTOR E. GARCIA;
DOCTOR KADIJA JELLOTTO; SMITH
LAIGEAU; NEW YORK STATE LABOR, Albany;
FEDERAL BUREAU IN DC; STRAFFORD
UNIVERSITY, Inwood, VA; NASSAU
1:17-cv-86
(DNH/DJS)
HOSPITAL, East Meadow, NY; S. BARNES,
Mercy Hospital; DOCTOR LORGAN; DOCTOR
FANTINATTA; ARTHUR SAFALLOW; HOLLY
PATTERSON NURSING HOME; MICHAEL J.
BERELLI; ZUCKER HOSPITAL; TOTAL CARE
AGENCY; RICCO AGENCY; VALUE CARE
AGENCY; and PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE,
Defendants.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:
AGNES GEORGES
Plaintiff pro se
4081 Thackery Terrace
Woodridge, VA 22192
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Agnes Georges brought this action against over seventy defendants.
On February 3, 2017, the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge,
advised by Report-Recommendation that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim but that plaintiff be permitted to file an amended
complaint to cure the stated deficiencies. No objections to the Report-Recommendation
have been filed.
Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
-2-
1. This action shall be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) unless, w ithin
thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order plaintiff files an amended complaint
that corrects the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation;
2. If plaintiff files an amended complaint within the referenced thirty (30) day
period, then the amended complaint shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart for his
review; and
3. If, however, plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the referenced
thirty (30) day period, then this action shall be dismissed without further order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 13, 2017
Utica, New York.
-3-
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?