Ingraham v. Red Carpet Housing Corp. et al
ORDER - That the 12 Report-Recommendation and Order is ADOPTED in its entirety. That plaintiffs' complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. That plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this Or der. That, if plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint within the time set forth above, the Clerk shall close this case without further order of the court. That the additional relief sought in plaintiffs' objections (Dkt. No. 13 at 6-7; Dkt. No. 14 at 1) is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/6/2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(jel, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BRUCE INGRAHAM et al.,
RED CARPET HOUSING CORP.
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Bruce Ingraham and Holly S. Ingraham
247 Bleecker Street
Gloversville, NY 12078
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Gary L. Sharpe
Senior District Judge
On October 19, 2017, Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel issued
a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R), which recommends that the
complaint of plaintiffs pro se Bruce and Holly S. Ingraham be dismissed
without prejudice and that leave to file an amended complaint be granted.
(Dkt. No. 12.) Pending before the court are plaintiffs’ objections to the
R&R. (Dkt. Nos. 13, 14.)1
Construing plaintiffs’ objections liberally, they do not fault the R&R in
any specific way. (Id.) Instead, the objections seem to be an attempt by
plaintiffs to offer additional facts and documentation of their claims.
Because the objections are “general,” they merit review for clear error only.
See Almonte v. N.Y.S. Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484, 2006 WL
149049, at *5-*6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). After careful consideration of
the R&R, the court finds no clear error and adopts the R&R, (Dkt. No. 12),
in its entirety. It is important to note that, even though the complaint is
dismissed, plaintiffs are granted permission to file an amended complaint
in an effort to cure the deficiencies identified in the R&R. (Id. at 6-11.) Any
such amended complaint must be filed within thirty days.
Accordingly, it is hereby
Plaintiffs’ objections can also be read to request various additional relief. For
example, plaintiffs seek a “trail [sic] within 30 days,” (Dkt. No. 13 at 7), and “continuis on
second mostion time line,” (Dkt. No. 14 at 1). To the extent that plaintiffs are requesting
additional time for some purpose (admittedly, it is not at all clear that plaintiffs seek any such
relief), the request is denied because they have met the deadline for filing their objections to
the R&R and there are no other outstanding deadlines to be extended. And because the
complaint is dismissed, the balance of the requests for relief are denied as moot.
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No.
12) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within thirty
days of the date of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that, if plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint within
the time set forth above, the Clerk shall close this case without further
order of the court; and it is further
ORDERED that the additional relief sought in plaintiffs’ objections
(Dkt. No. 13 at 6-7; Dkt. No. 14 at 1) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the clerk provide a copy of this Order to plaintiffs in
accordance with the Local Rules of Practice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 6, 2017
Albany, New York
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?