Yefimova v. bank trustco

Filing 6

DECISION AND ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendations and dismissing the complaint. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 5/15/17. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(sfp, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------LYUBOV YEFIMOVA, Plaintiff, 1:17-CV-00403 (TJM/TWD) v. BANK TRUSTCO, Defendant. -------------------------------THOMAS J. McAVOY Senior United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This pro se action was referred to the Hon. Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, for initial review. In her May 1, 2017 Order and ReportRecommendation, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommends that the complaint (dkt. # 1) be dismissed with prejudice “under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) on the grounds that the district court is without subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, and the complaint is in any event frivolous.” Ord. & Rep.-Rec., p. 8, dkt. # 4. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Order and Report-Recommendation. See Obj., dkt. # 5. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are lodged, the district court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 1 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997) (The Court must make a de novo determination to the extent that a party makes specific objections to a magistrate’s findings.). General or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same arguments presented to the magistrate judge, are reviewed for clear error. Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 n. 2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see Frankel v. N.Y.C., 2009 WL 465645 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2009). After reviewing the report and recommendation, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). III. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s rambling, disjointed, and bizarre objections,1 and conducted a de novo review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). After doing so, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Dancks’s conclusion that the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and the complaint is frivolous. 1 Plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that the individual who allegedly stole her funds from a safe at the defendant bank, Yelena Vishnevetskaya, “managed to replace in the clerk [sic] my papers” so Magistrate Judge Dancks “worked with false papers.” Obj, p. 2; Vishnevetskaya “has taken not less than 22 billion dollars, from my courts [sic], at the same time I haven’t received from her any cent.” Id.; “It is group I killed me [sic], 911 I [sic] restored me to life.” Id.; Vishnevetskaya’s lover, Yaroslav Biklimishev, “shot at me two times in 2004, and once in 2007. They transplanted at me [sic] bodies for sale [sic].” Id., pp. 2-3; “Vishnevetskaya shot at the head, previously drilled a drill the [sic] head, and then having put the gun [sic] - shot at night.” Id. p., 3; Vishnevetskaya “buys all judges for 20 percent [sic] and finances terrorist group of murderers. Behind which [sic] and terrorism [sic] on September 11, 2001 which I can prove.” Id. 2 IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the recommendations in the Order and Report- Recommendation (dkt. # 4) for the reasons stated therein. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that the complaint (dkt. # 1) is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) on the grounds that the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and the complaint is frivolous. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 15, 2017 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?