Andrews v. Rowland et al

Filing 7

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, th at Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with these claims, he must file, within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order, an amended complaint that remedies the deficiencies identified in the Report-Recommendation. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on October 16, 2014. ***A copy of this order was served upon the pro se plaintiff by regular US mail. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VERNON H. ANDREWS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

3:14-CV-0851 (LEK/DEP)

DENNIS ROWLAND, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August
28, 2014, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 6 (“Report-Recommendation”).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, 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 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. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A., 434 F. App’x 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011); Barnes v. Prack, No.
11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d
301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 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, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior
argument.”).

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court
has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error. Having found none, the ReportRecommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is
DENIED without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with these claims, he must file, within thirty (30) days of the filing
date of this Order, an amended complaint that remedies the deficiencies identified in the ReportRecommendation;1 and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties to this
action in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

October 16, 2014
Albany, New York

1

Any amended complaint, which shall supersede and replace the original Complaint in its
entirety, must allege claims of misconduct or wrongdoing against each named defendant which
Plaintiff has a legal right to pursue, and over which this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction.
Any amended complaint must also comply with the pleading requirements of Rules 8 and 10 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2