Laspisa v. Citifinancial et al

Filing 6

DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 5 Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. This action shall be sua sponte 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 Complaint that corrects the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and if Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint within the referenced thirty-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-day period, then this action shall be dismissed without further Order of the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/29/17. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
JOHN LASPISA,
Plaintiff,
1:17-CV-0556
(GTS/DJS)

v.
CITIFINANCIAL; and DOES 1 TO 20,
Defendants.
___________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
JOHN LASPISA
Plaintiff, Pro Se
166 Ballston Ave
Ballston Spa, New York 12020
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by John Laspisa
(“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned entity and Does 1 to 20 (“Defendants”), is United States
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart’s Report-Recommendation recommending that this action be
sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) unless, within (30) days of the date of a
Decision and Order adopting the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint
that corrects the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 5.)
Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline in which to
do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge
Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-

Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation
is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that this action shall be sua sponte 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 Complaint that corrects the pleading defects identified in the ReportRecommendation; and it is further
ORDERED that, if Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint within the referenced thirtyday 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-day
period, then this action shall be dismissed without further Order of the Court.
Dated: August 30, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

1

When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2