Smith v. Pines et al
Filing
6
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 4 Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Tkach and Eaves in his original Complaint are deemed to be formally defective and in need of correction through an Amended Complaint or they will be DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Pines and Lanouette in his original Complaint are deemed to be substantively defective and not capable of reassertion. The Cle rk of the Court shall amend the docket so as to TERMINATE Spero Pines and Ronald Lanouette as Defendants in this action, but to ADD as Defendants the additional entities and individuals identified in the Amended Complaint (i.e., the Broome County Dep artment of Social Services, Traci Ziegenhagen, Katrina Tokos, Julia Hepworth, Jessica Layman, Susan Patterson, Marissa Carter, Kathleen Santoni, John Choynowski, Jon Peterson, and Berskshire Farm Center). Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 5 ) is returned to Magistrate Judge Peebles for his review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/16/17. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
TIMOTHY SMITH,
Plaintiff,
3:17-CV-0286
(GTS/DEP)
v.
SPERO PINES, Broome Cty. Family Court Judge;
RONALD LANOUETTE, Broome Cty. Family
Court Lawyer; JOHN TKACH, DSS Case Manager;
and TICIA EAVES, Berkshire Case Planner,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
TIMOTHY SMITH
Plaintiff, Pro Se
6 Main Street Terrace, Apt. 2A
Johnson, New York 13790
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Timothy Smith
(“Plaintiff”) against the four above-captioned individuals (“Defendants”) arising out of the
transfer of his children to the custody of the Broome County Department of Social Services
(“DSS”), is United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles’ Report-Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Tkach and Eaves be dismissed with
leave to replead through an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of any Court
Order adopting the Report-Recommendation, but that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Pines
and Lanouette be dismissed without leave to replead. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff has not filed an
Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline in which to do so has expired. (See
generally Docket Sheet.) Instead, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint as of right pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A).1 (Dkt. No. 5.)
Ordinarily, an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint in all respects.2 As a
result, the filing of an amended complaint may effectively moot a report-recommendation to the
extent the report-recommendation recommends the dismissal of a claim that is asserted in a
complaint but not in the amended complaint.3 However, here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
(although abandoning his claims against Defendants Pines and Lanouette) attempts to correct the
pleading defects (identified by Magistrate Judge Peebles) in his claims against Defendants Tkach
1
The Court notes that, by the time he filed his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff had
not yet served his original Complaint, eliminating the need for a motion to amend. See, e.g.,
Smith v. Schweiloch, 12-CV-3253, 2012 WL 2277687, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2012) (“The
complaint has not yet been served. Smith therefore does not need to seek the Court's leave to file
an amended complaint.”). The Court notes also that this case is distinguishable from Cresci v.
Mohawk, No. 15-3234, 2017 WL 2392470 (2d Cir. June 2, 2017), for two alternative reasons: (1)
in this case, Plaintiff did not file a motion to amend but an Amended Complaint as of right; and
(2) in this case, Plaintiff was not notified of the pleading defects in his original Complaint
through the mere motion to dismiss of a defendant but through a Report-Recommendation of a
Magistrate Judge (which was dispositive unless clearly erroneous, because he choose not to
challenge it).
2
See Int’l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir.1977) (“It is well
established that an amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original, and renders it of no
legal effect.”); 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476, at 556-57 (2d ed.
1990) (“A pleading that has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies
and remains in effect throughout the action unless it subsequently is modified.”); cf. N.D.N.Y.
L.R. 7.1(a)(4) (“[T]he proposed amended pleading . . . will supersede the pleading sought to be
amended in all respects.”).
3
See Gasaway v. Williams, 11-CV-0549, 2012 WL 264611, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan.
30, 2012) (Suddaby, J.) (“Of course, to the extent that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint corrects
the pleading deficiencies identified in the Report–Recommendation, the ReportRecommendation has been rendered moot.”); cf. 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice &
Procedure § 1476, at 556-57 (2d ed. 1990) (“[P]laintiff may file a new complaint that does not
refer to or adopt any of the deficient allegations in the original pleading; if the first complaint is
considered superseded by the amendment, the court is not required to dismiss the suit when a
motion points up the weaknesses of the earlier pleading.”).
2
and Eaves, and attempts to assert similar claims against the Broome County Department of
Social Services itself, nine additional employees thereof, and Berskshire Farm Center. (Dkt. No.
5.) Moreover, the Court continues to be shouldered with the statutory duty to review the
pleading sufficiency of this in forma pauperis plaintiff’s amended claims (which do not appear
dramatically different from those asserted in his original Complaint). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
As a result, the Court finds that much, if not the entirety, of the Report-Recommendation has not
been mooted;4 and the Court will therefore review the Report-Recommendation.
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that reportrecommendation 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).
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Peebles’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the ReportRecommendation. Magistrate Judge Peebles employed the proper standards, accurately recited
4
See Praileau v. Fischer, 930 F. Supp.2d 383, 392 (N.D.N.Y. 2013) (Suddaby, J.)
(“Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation has not been mooted by the filing of
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, because the Amended Complaint repeats the two pleading
defects identified in the original Complaint.”); cf. 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice &
Procedure § 1476, at 556-57 (2d ed. 1990) (“If some of the defects raised in the original motion
remain in the new pleading, the court simply may consider the motion [to dismiss] as being
addressed to the amended pleading. To hold otherwise would be to exalt form over substance.”).
3
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. Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Tkach and Eaves in his original Complaint are deemed to be formally defective and
in need of correction through an Amended Complaint or they will be dismissed with prejudice;
and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Pines and Lanouette in his original Complaint are
deemed to be substantively defective and not capable of reassertion.
Finally, the Court returns this matter to Magistrate Judge Peebles for his review of the
pleading sufficiency of the Amended Complaint (and his management of pretrial matters).
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Tkach and Eaves in his original
Complaint are deemed to be formally defective and in need of correction through an Amended
Complaint or they will be DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Pines and Lanouette in his original
Complaint are deemed to be substantively defective and not capable of reassertion; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall amend the docket so as to TERMINATE
Spero Pines and Ronald Lanouette as Defendants in this action, but to ADD as Defendants the
additional entities and individuals identified in the Amended Complaint (i.e., the Broome County
Department of Social Services, Traci Ziegenhagen, Katrina Tokos, Julia Hepworth, Jessica
Layman, Susan Patterson, Marissa Carter, Kathleen Santoni, John Choynowski, Jon Peterson,
and Berskshire Farm Center); and it is further
4
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 5) is returned to Magistrate
Judge Peebles for his review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Dated: June 16, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
5
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?