Georges v. Hatser et al

Filing 7

DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 5 Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's complaint is sua sponte dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be greante d. Plaintiff shall, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, SHOW CAUSE in writing why she should not be permanently ENJOINED from filing any future pleadings or documents of any kind (including motions) in this District wit hout first seeking and obtaining permission of the Chief District Judge or his or her designee (except pleadings or documents in a case that is open at the time of the issuance of the Courts Pre-Filing Order until that case is closed). The Clerk of the Court is directed to open a new pre-filing case number 9:18-pf-3 and file a copy of this Decision and Order in that pre-filing case. Plaintiffs response to this Order to Show Cause shall be filed in case number 9:18-pf-3. Iff Plaintiff does not fully comply with this Decision and Order, the Court will issue a subsequent order, without further explanation, permanently so enjoining Plaintiff. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/9/18. (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail) (lmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
AGNES GEORGES,
Plaintiff,
1:17-CV-1243
(GTS/CFH)

v.
JOEL HATSER, Advisor Lawyer;
JOSEPH CIAVANITTI, U.S. Attorney Lawyer; and
KURT BRATTEN BRIAN, Bar Association
518-445-7691
Defendants.
___________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
AGNES GEORGES
Plaintiff, Pro Se
12 St. Joseph’s Terrace
Albany, New York 12210
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER OF DISMISSAL
and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Agnes Georges
(“ Plaintiff”) against the three above-captioned individuals (“Defendants”), is United States
Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s
Complaint be sua sponte dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and that the Court issue a Pre-Filing Order
permanently enjoining Plaintiff from making any future filings in this District pro se without
first obtaining permission from the Chief District Judge. (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.)

Based upon a careful review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error1 in the
Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the proper standards, accurately
recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court accepts and
adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff’s Complaint is sua
sponte dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff is directed to show cause why she should not be
permanently enjoined from making any future filings in this District pro se without obtaining
prior leave of the Chief District Judge or his or her designee.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the date of this
Decision and Order, SHOW CAUSE in writing why she should not be permanently
ENJOINED from filing any future pleadings or documents of any kind (including motions) in
this District without first seeking and obtaining permission of the Chief District Judge or his or
her designee (except pleadings or documents in a case that is open at the time of the issuance of

1

When, as here, 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 and citations omitted).
2

the Court’s Pre-Filing Order until that case is closed). The Clerk of the Court is directed to open
a new pre-filing case number 9:18-pf-3 and file a copy of this Decision and Order in that prefiling case. Plaintiff’s response to this Order to Show Cause shall be filed in case number 9:18pf-3; and it is further
ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not fully comply with this Decision and Order, the
Court will issue a subsequent order, without further explanation, permanently so enjoining
Plaintiff; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff
by certified mail.
Dated: February 9, 2018
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

3