Ross v. Kristin Dempsey O'Donnell, et al
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that the 11 Order and Report-Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart is accepted and adopted. It is further ORDERED that this action be dismissed in its entirety with prejudi ce pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii). It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's 3 letter motion and 8 letter request are denied as moot. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 3/31/2017. (Copy served via regular and certified) [Certified Mail Article #7015 3010 0001 4974 6515] (dpk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL RAYMOND ROSS,
DEMPSEY UNIFORM AND LINEN SUPPLY;
JAMES GREENWALD, Asst. Federal Public
Defender; MATTHEW BROWN, Senior U.S.
Probation Officer in the Federal Probation Office in
Syracuse, NY; DORCAS BRANDON; CRAIG
BENEDICT; THOMAS MCAVOY, Federal Court
Judge; ROBERT LYONS, FBI Agent; PAUL BOKOL;
KRISTEN DEMPSEY O’DONNELL, Vice President
of Dempsey Uniform and Linen Supply; THOMAS
O’DONNELL, FBI Agent; FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER’S OFFICE IN SYRACUSE, NY,
Paul Raymond Ross
14 Cartwright St. #2
Sidney, NY 13838
Plaintiff, pro se
Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Senior U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On October 5, 2016, plaintiff filed a civil rights suit against the above captioned
defendants. (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”),
which was granted December 13, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 10). After reviewing the sufficiency of the
complaint, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart issued a
thorough Report-Recommendation and Order, recommending dismissal of the complaint in its
entirety. (Dkt. No. 11). Plaintiff has filed an objection. (Dkt. No. 12).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo those parts of the
Report-Recommendation to which plaintiff specifically objects. Where, however, an objecting
party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments,
the Court reviews for clear error. See Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
When no objections are made, the Court conducts clear error review. See Kaboggozamusoke v.
Rye Town Hilton Hotel, 370 F. App’x 246, 248, n.1 (2d Cir. 2010).
Magistrate Judge Stewart addressed plaintiff’s claims of conspiracy, malicious abuse of
process, tortious interference of contract, and defamation, against all defendants concluding, for
various reasons, that they fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In his
objection, plaintiff simply states general legal principles, and repeats his allegations against the
named defendants. His submissions do not, however, provide any information that would impact
the conclusions reached by Judge Stewart in his report-recommendation.
After a thorough review of the report-recommendation, documents submitted by plaintiff,
and applicable law, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Stewart’s analysis. Consequently, the
Report-Recommendation and Order is adopted in its entirety. In light of the dismissal of the
action, the Court denies as moot plaintiff’s letter motion for the necessary service forms to be
completed (Dkt. No. 3) and for an order of protection (Dkt. No. 8).
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) of United States
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart is accepted and adopted; and it is further
ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii); and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s letter motion (Dkt. No. 3) and letter request (Dkt. No. 8) are
denied as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this MemorandumDecision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 31, 2017
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?