Orzelek v. Camp et al

Filing 6

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to replead within thirty days of the filing date of this Order; and it is further ORDERED, that, if Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within thirty days of the filing date of this Order, the Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further order. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on January 03, 2018. (Copy served via regular mail)(sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FRITZ JOSEPH ORZELEK,
Plaintiff,
-against-

3:17-CV-1153 (LEK/DEP)

ELIZABETH M. CAMP, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a report-recommendation filed on
November 28, 2017, 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. 24 (“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); 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.” § 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. 5) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2)
is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to replead
within thirty days of the filing date of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED, that, if Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within thirty days of the
filing date of this Order, the Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further
order; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

January 03, 2018
Albany, New York

2