Behn v. Brown et al
Filing
11
DECISION AND ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendations. Pltf's complaint shall be dismissed unless Pltf files an Amended Complaint by 7/25/16. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/24/16. [Served by mail.] (sfp, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
ARTHUR J. BEHN,
Plaintiff,
3:16-CV-0213
(GTS/DEP)
v.
P.O. SHARON BROWN; and
S.P.O. ARON PALM,
Defendants.
__________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
ARTHUR J. BEHN
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Broome County Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2047
Binghamton, New York 13902
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Arthur J. Behn
(“Plaintiff”) against New York State Parole Officers Sharon Brown and Aron Palm
(“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles’ Report-Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in its entirety but that Plaintiff be
permitted leave to file an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection
to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally
Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge
Peebles’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-
Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Peebles employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation
is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED in its entirety,
without further notice of the Court, unless, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this
Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that corrects the pleading defects
identified in the Report-Recommendation. In addition, Plaintiff is reminded of his duty to
immediately notify the Court of any change in his address, in accordance with Local Rule
10.1(c)(2) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court.
Dated: June 24, 2016
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
1
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation 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 omitted).
2
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?