Brewer v. Rutland Herald et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles' October 8, 2104 10 Report-Recommendations and Order is ADOPTED in its entirety. That Brewer's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. That Brewer may - in accordance with the requirements of, inter alia, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and N.D.L.Y.L.R. 7.1(a)(4) - file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days fo the date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order. That, if Brewer fails to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order, the Clerk shall CLOSE this action without further order of the court. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/13/2015. (jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
ROBERT BREWER,
Plaintiff,

3:14-cv-958
(GLS/DEP)

v.
RUTLAND HERALD et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Robert Brewer
Pro Se
P.O. Box 438
Binghamton, NY 13903
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
JoJo Schwarzauer, Maury Mitchell
Gleason, Dunn Law Firm
40 Beaver Street
Albany, NY 12207

RONALD G. DUNN, ESQ.

Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff pro se Robert Brewer commenced this action against
defendants Rutland Herald, Brattleboro Reformer, Officer Hashim, Sgt

LaBombard, Sgt Treaudeux, Vermont State Police, JoJo Schwarzauer,
Maury Mitchell, Margaret Immel Brewer, Robert Martin Brewer, David C.
Drummond, Alan Eustace, Salar Komangar, Sridhar Ramaswamy, Urs
Hölzle, Vic Gundotra, Brett Lider, Johanna Wright, Trey Harris, Matt Cutts,
and Connected Properties, LLC, alleging a host of claims arising out of
several seemingly unrelated events. (See generally Compl., Dkt. No. 1.)
In a Report, Recommendation, and Order (R&R) issued on October 8,
2014, Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles ordered that Brewer’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) be granted, and recommended, upon
initial review of Brewer’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), that
the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, with leave to submit an amended
complaint. (Dkt. No. 10.) Pending are Brewer’s objections to the R&R.
(Dkt. No. 13.) For the reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its
entirety.
II. Background
Brewer’s complaint consists of 311 paragraphs, and purports to
assert thirty-five causes of action against twenty-one named defendants.
(See generally Compl.) His allegations appear to stem primarily from
several entirely unrelated sets of circumstances. First, he makes
2

allegations regarding a traffic stop by unnamed members of the Vermont
State Police, during which a firearm was confiscated from his vehicle. (Id.
¶¶ 5-23.) Brewer also claims that two Vermont newspapers falsely
reported the incident and the extent of his criminal history. (Id. ¶¶ 24-28.)
Separately, Brewer contends that his son and ex-wife conspired to access
Brewer’s email and Facebook accounts without his authorization,
constituting a “warrantless wiretap,” and falsely attributed him with debts
that were actually incurred by them, harming Brewer’s credit rating. (Id.
¶¶ 40-68.) Additionally, Brewer claims that Google employees manipulated
online images of various criminals to resemble him, and created false
criminal history profiles under his name. (Id. ¶¶ 74-125.) Finally, Brewer
makes allegations against his landlord related to problems he had with
neighbors in his apartment building who were making excessive noise and
spying on him from their own apartments. (Id. ¶¶ 126-88.)
Brewer filed his complaint on July 31, 2014. (See generally id.) No
defendant has yet answered the complaint. Brewer sought leave to
proceed IFP, (Dkt. No. 2), which triggered initial review of his complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon this initial review, Judge Peebles
recommended that the complaint be dismissed with leave to file an
3

amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 10.)
III. Standard of Review
Before entering final judgment, this court reviews report and
recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a
party properly objects to a specific element of the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and
recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No.
Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *3, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006).
In those cases where no party has filed an objection, only vague or general
objections are made, or a party resubmits the same papers and arguments
already considered by the magistrate judge, this court reviews the findings
and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id. at *45.
IV. Discussion
In his R&R, Judge Peebles recommended that, “[g]iven the . . .
general rambling and confusing nature of [Brewer]’s complaint,” it be
dismissed because Brewer’s allegations do not appear to support any
recognized cause of action, he has failed to allege the personal
involvement of several of the named defendants, and there is no apparent
4

basis for personal jurisdiction over many defendants. (Dkt. No. 10 at 7-11.)
Despite these deficiencies, and given Brewer’s pro se status, Judge
Peebles recommended that Brewer be permitted leave to file an amended
complaint in which he more clearly states his causes of action and
supports them with specific factual allegations. (Id. at 12-13.)
From what the court can discern from Brewer’s objections, he
appears to agree with, or accept, many of the recommendations made by
Judge Peebles in the R&R. (Dkt. No. 13 ¶¶ 1-4, 6, 13-14, 27.) Most
tellingly, many of his objections consist of his apparent willingness to
amend his complaint, and his insistence that he will more clearly and
adequately allege his claims “in the new [c]omplaint.” (Id. ¶¶ 3, 6, 9, 14,
16-18, 21-23, 25, 28-33.) The objections that Brewer does make to the
portions he disagrees with do not merit de novo review. On several
occasions in his objections, he simply notes his disagreement with the
R&R, and states, without any explanation or analysis, his “belief” that
defendants are liable and/or that he has adequately alleged a claim. (Id.
¶¶ 5, 10, 12, 15, 24, 29-32, 34-37.) His objections, therefore, merit only
review for clear error, consistent with the standards set forth in Almonte,
2006 WL 149049, at *3-5. After careful review of Brewer’s complaint and
5

the recommendations in the R&R, the court finds that the
recommendations are not clearly erroneous, and adopts them in their
entirety.
V. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles’ October 8, 2014
Report, Recommendation, and Order (Dkt. No. 10) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Brewer’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and
it is further
ORDERED that Brewer may—in accordance with the requirements
of, inter alia, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(a)(4)—file an
amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this MemorandumDecision and Order; and it is further
ORDERED that, if Brewer fails to file an amended complaint within
thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order, the
Clerk shall CLOSE this action without further order of the court; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum6

Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 13, 2015
Albany, New York

7