Reedom v. Schenectady County Community College and Pension Plan

Filing 17

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs claims for p unitive damages are DISMISSED without leave to amend; and it is further ORDERED, that if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must submit an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this Order, or else the Clerk of the Court shall close this action without further order of the Court. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on June 19, 2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JAMES PATRICK REEDOM
Plaintiff,
-against-

1:17-CV-0365 (LEK/CFH)

SCHENECTADY COUNTY
COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND PENSION
PLAN,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May
15, 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. 16 (“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. 16) 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; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages are DISMISSED without leave
to amend; and it is further
ORDERED, that if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must submit an
amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this Order, or else the Clerk of the Court
shall close this action without further order of the Court; 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:

June 19, 2017
Albany, New York

2