Profitt v. Freedman et al

Filing 5

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); and it is further ORD ERED, that if Plaintiff wishes to amend her complaint, she must file a signed amended complaint that cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation within thirty days from the filing date of this Order; and it is further ORDERED, that if Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within thirty days from the filing date of this Order, her complaint shall be DISMISSED with prejudice without further order from the Court. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on August 29, 2017. (Copy served via regular mail)(sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DONNA PROFITT,
Plaintiff,
-against-

3:17-CV-715 (LEK/DEP)

DONALD S. FREEDMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August
8, 2017, by the Honorable David E. Peebeles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 4 (“Report-Recommendation”).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s
report-recommendation, 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 need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for
clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18,
2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306–07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also
Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-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. Docket. Thus, the Court has
reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); and it is further
ORDERED, that if Plaintiff wishes to amend her complaint, she must file a signed
amended complaint that cures the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation
within thirty days from the filing date of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED, that if Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within thirty days from
the filing date of this Order, her complaint shall be DISMISSED with prejudice without further
order from the Court; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

August 29, 2017
Albany, New York

2