Nuphlo Entertainment, Inc. et al v. Miller et al

Filing 184

ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and Recommendation, dated November 23, 2016, is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. The Court further ORDERS that Defendants' # 174 motion for sanct ions is GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's remaining claims in this action are DISMISSED. The Court further ORDERS that the # 168 motion of Defendant Gary Herzig, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Oneonta, for a partial judgment in his favor pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is DENIED as moot. The Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 12/21/2016. [Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail.] (nmk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________
TIMOTHY A. BARON,
Plaintiff,
v.

3:13-CV-153
(FJS/DEP)

TIMOTHY WEST, JR., New York State
Trooper, in his individual capacity; and
JACOB LAKOMSKI, New York State
Trooper, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
______________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

TIMOTHY A. BARON
Oneonta, New York 13820
Plaintiff pro se
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendants

LOUIS JIM, AAG
CATHY Y. SHEEHAN, AAG

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
On November 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Report and Recommendation in
which he recommended that this Court dismiss the remaining claims in this action against
Defendants West and Lakomski based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Text Order
dated July 25, 2016. See Dkt. No. 182 at 10. Plaintiff filed objections to this recommendation. See
Dkt No. 183.
The basis for Magistrate Judge Peebles' recommendation was Plaintiff's failure to comply

with the Court's Text Order Dated July 25, 2016, in which the Court ordered Plaintiff "to provide
proper responses and/or objections to defendants' [discovery] demands on or before 8/12/2016 . . . ."
See Dkt. No. 160. The Court also advised Plaintiff that his "failure to comply with this order could
result in the issuance of sanctions, including the striking of plaintiff's complaint and dismissal of his
claims." See id. Despite the Court's Order and its warning of the consequences of the failure to
comply with the same, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' outstanding discovery demands.
See Dkt. No. 182 at 4-5.
After reviewing a magistrate judge's recommendations, the district court may accept, reject
or modify those recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews de novo those
portions of the magistrate judge's recommendations to which a party objects. See Pizzaro v.
Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). "'"If, however, the party makes only conclusory or
general objections, . . . the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error."'"
Salmini v. Astrue, No. 3:06-CV-458, 2009 WL 179741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (quoting
[Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301] at 306 [(N.D.N.Y. 2008)] (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen,
517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007))).
Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Peebles' recommendation, for the most part, consist
of conclusory statements that have nothing to do with Plaintiff's remaining claims, see Dkt. No. 183
at 2-3, or only, generally, refer to those claims, see Dkt. No. 183 at 2(stating that Plaintiff does "not
consent of you to come up with an opinion of the attack from the New York Stat [sic] Troopers if
you were not there"). The remainder of Plaintiff's objections is comprised of a list of statements in
which, it appears, that Plaintiff as the "Responding Party" objects to numerous, unknown requests,
which may or may not be related to Defendants' discovery requests; but, whether they are or not,
-2-

they clearly do not comply with Rule 33's requirements for such responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.
Despite the lack of specificity in Plaintiff's objections, due to his pro se status, the Court has
undertaken a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Peebles' recommendation. Having completed that
review, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and Recommendation, dated November 23,
2016, is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for sanctions, see Dkt. No. 174, is GRANTED; and the
Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's remaining claims in this action are DISMISSED; and the Court
further
ORDERS that the motion of Defendant Gary Herzig, in his official capacity as Mayor of the
City of Oneonta, for a partial judgment in his favor pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, see Dkt. No. 168, is DENIED as moot; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close
this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2016
Syracuse, New York

-3-