Haydu v. United States Federal Government
Filing
7
DECISION & ORDER denying accepting and adopting # 6 Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's complaint is sua sponte dismissed with prejudice without further order of the Court unless, within 30 days of the date of this Decision & Order, Plaintiff submits an Amended Complaint that corrects the pleading defects in Magistrate Peebles' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6 ); and it is further ORDERED that in the event that Plaintiff files an Amende d Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order, the Clerk of the Court shall to return the file to the Magistrate Judge for further review. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for judgment as a matter of law (Dkt. No. 5 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/6/13. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER HAYDU,
Plaintiff,
3:12-CV-1425
(GTS/DEP)
v.
U.S. FED. GOV’T,
Defendant.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
CHRISTOPHER HAYDU
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Box 292
Downsville, New York 13755
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in the above-captioned tort action filed by Christopher Haydu
(“Plaintiff”) against the United States Government, is United States Magistrate Judge David E.
Peebles’ Report-Recommendation recommending (1) this action be sua sponte dismissed with
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 unless, within 30
days of the date of the Order adopting the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff timely files an
Amended Complaint correcting the two pleading defects identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint
(which stem from the doctrines of sovereign immunity and standing), (2) Plaintiff’s motion for
judgment as a matter of law be denied without prejudice as premature, and (3) Plaintiff’s motion
for leave to file a Supplemental Complaint be denied as futile based on lack of standing. (Dkt.
No. 6, at Part II.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation and the
deadline in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that reportrecommendation 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).
Here, based upon a careful review of this matter, the Court can find no error with
Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation, clear or otherwise. Magistrate Judge
Peebles employed the proper standards, accurately construed Plaintiff’s claims, and reasonably
applied the law to those claims. (Dkt. No. 6.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is
accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. (Id.) The Court would add
only that, while ordinarily a plaintiff would have a right to file a supplemental complaint under
the circumstances pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), the Court would still retain (in cases where,
as here, the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis) the authority and indeed the duty to sua
sponte dismiss that supplemental complaint for lack of standing, which authority the Court
exercises here for the reasons offered by Magistrate Judge Peebles.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
2
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED with
prejudice without further Order of the Court unless, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of
this Decision and Order, Plaintiff submits an Amended Complaint that corrects the pleading
defects identified in Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6); and it is
further
ORDERED that, in the event that Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint within thirty
(30) days of the date of this Decision and Order, the Clerk of the Court shall to return the file to
the Magistrate Judge for further review; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (Dkt. No. 5) is
DENIED without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Supplemental Complaint (Dkt. No.
5) is DENIED.
The Court hereby certifies, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal taken
from the Court's final judgment in this action would not be taken in good faith.
Dated: March 6, 2013
Syracuse, 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?