Gonzalez v. City of Kingston et al

Filing 7

DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Clegg, Gilpatrick, Kirschner, and Farrell are DISMISSED with prejudic e. The remaining claims in Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) i.e., his claims against Defendants City of Kingston and Ulster County shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of this Court UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT that cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation. Should Plaintiff wish to file an Amended Complaint in this matter, the Amended Complaint must be a complete pleading which will supercede and replace his original Complaint in all respects, and not reassert any claims that have been dismissed with prejudice. Should Plaintiff file a timely Amended Complaint, the Amended Complaint be returned to Magistrate Judge Hummel for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T Suddaby on 6/4/2024. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________
JOSUE ANTONIO GONAZALEZ
Plaintiff,
1:23-CV-1198
(GTS/CFH)

v.
CITY OF KINGSTON; JUDGE KIRSCHNER, Kingston
City Court Judge, in His Official and Individual Capacity;
DAVID J. CLEGG, Ulster county District Atty., in His
Official and Individual Capacity; JAMES R. FARRELL,
Ulster County Court Judge, in His Official and Individual
Capacity; JUDGE GILPATRICK, Supreme Court Judge,
in His Official and Individual Capacity, and ULSTER
COUNTY,
Defendants.
______________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

JOSUE ANTONIO GONZALEZ
Plaintiff, Pro Se
431 Lawrie Street
Perth Amboy, New Jersey 08861
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Josue Antonio
Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) against Ulster County, the City of Kingston, and the four above-captioned
individuals (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s ReportRecommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Clegg, Gilpatrick,
Kirschner, and Farrell be dismissed with prejudice, and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
County of Ulster and City of Kingston be dismissed without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff

has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has
expired. (See generally, Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge
Hummel’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the ReportRecommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Hummel 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 stated therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Clegg, Gilpatrick, Kirschner, and
Farrell are DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the remaining claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) – i.e., his
claims against Defendants City of Kingston and Ulster County – shall be DISMISSED with
prejudice and without further Order of this Court UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of
entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT that cures the
pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further

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

ORDERED that, should Plaintiff wish to file an Amended Complaint in this matter, the
Amended Complaint must be a complete pleading which will supercede and replace his original
Complaint in all respects, and not reassert any claims that have been dismissed with prejudice;
and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file a timely Amended Complaint, the Amended
Complaint be returned to Magistrate Judge Hummel for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915.
Dated: June 4, 2024
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
United States District Judge

3