Bonilla v. New York State

Filing 12

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on May 12, 2016.***A copy of this order & subsequent judgment was served upon the pro se party by Certified US Mail & Regular US Mail. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DANIEL RAY BONILLA,
Plaintiff,
-against-

3:15-cv-1276 (LEK/DEP)

RITA CONNERTON, in her
official capacity as Family Court
Judge, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on April 14,
2016, 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. 10 (“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 must review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear
error. 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.”). “A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b).
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court
has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none. Additionally, the
Court agrees with Judge Peebles that since Plaintiff has already been afforded one opportunity to
amend his Complaint and continues to make claims against entities and persons that are immune
from suit, further leave to amend will not be granted.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice and without
leave to amend; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

May 12, 2016
Albany, New York

2