Khanna v. Roy et al
Filing
36
DECISION and ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 34) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk close this action. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on January 11, 2022. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(sas)
Case 1:20-cv-01428-LEK-TWD Document 36 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANN KHANNA,
Plaintiff,
-against-
1:20-CV-1428 (LEK/TWD)
DERIK ROY, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Ann Khanna commenced this pro se action on November 20, 2020, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 1962 alleging violation of her constitutional rights by various
private and government actors as well as a cross-border civil conspiracy to injure her state and
federal rights. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff amended her
Complaint. Dkt. No. 31 (“Amended Complaint”).
Now before the Court is a Report-Recommendation prepared by the Honorable Thérèse
W. Dancks after initial review of the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), recommending the Amended Complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 34 (“ReportRecommendation”). For the reasons that follow, the Court approves and adopts the ReportRecommendation.
II.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations
Petitioner’s factual allegations are detailed in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity
with which is assumed. See R. & R. at 3.
B. The Report-Recommendation
Case 1:20-cv-01428-LEK-TWD Document 36 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 3
After review of the facts and claims asserted by Plaintiff, Judge Dancks found that the
Amended Complaint fails to state a claim regarding two of the three causes of action, and that
there is no independent basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining cause of
action. See id. at 4–7. Judge Dancks thus recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice because even a liberal reading does not “give[] any indication that a
valid claim might be stated.” Id. at 7 (citing Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704-05 (2d Cir.
1991)).
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 objections are timely
filed, a court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
However, 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
(N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. 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 . . . .”). “A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” § 636(b).
2
Case 1:20-cv-01428-LEK-TWD Document 36 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3 of 3
IV.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report-Recommendation. See Docket.
Consequently, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error and finds none.
Therefore, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
V.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 84) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk close this action; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
January 11, 2022
Albany, New York
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?