Henderson v. Clover Field

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Baxter's # 4 Report and Recommendations in its entirety; and sua sponte dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 USC 1951A(b)(1). Plai ntiff is further directed to SHOW CAUSE within thirty days of the date of this decision and order as to why he should not be barred from filing any future pro se submissions in this case without prior leave of the Court, pursuant to 28 USc 1651(a) and the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket so as to prevent abuse in its proceedings. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/11/12. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
SHAWN HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,
5:12-CV-0708
(GTS/ATB)

v.
CLOVER FIELD,
Defendant.
_______________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
SHAWN HENDERSON, No. 935411
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 W. Reformatory Road
Pendleton, Indiana 46064
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Shawn Henderson
(“Plaintiff”), is the Report-Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T.
Baxter recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be sua sponte dismissed for frivolousness
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). For the reasons set forth
below, Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its
entirety.
I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Because Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action is identical to the one filed more than four

years ago in the case of Henderson v. Clover Field, 08-CV-0504, the Court will not describe that
Complaint in this Decision and Order, but will merely refer the reader to the description of that

Complaint contained in the decision of Henderson v. Clover Field, 08-CV-0504, 2008 WL
2405705, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. June 11, 2008) (Report-Recommendation of Lowe, M.J., adopted by
McCurn, J.). The Court would add only that, as United States Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe
correctly noted in that prior decision, Plaintiff appears, in his Complaint, to be suing a fantasy
movie–a practice in which he has engaged in the past. Henderson, 2008 WL 2405705, at *3.
Generally, in his Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Baxter bases his
recommendation of dismissal on the fact that, because no difference exists between Plaintiff’s
prior Complaint and his current Complaint, the current Complaint should be dismissed for the
same reasons given by Magistrate Judge Lowe. (Dkt. No. 4, at 2.)
Following the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff filed thirteen “Notices” with the Court,
containing nonsensical handwritten edits to various documents served on him by the Court (as
well as other documents), and demanding payment of 666 billion Eurodollars. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.)
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a specific objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-

recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be “specific,” the objection
must, with particularity, “identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or
report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.” N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c).1

1

See also Mario v. P&C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002)
(“Although Mario filed objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation, the statement
with respect to his Title VII claim was not specific enough to preserve this claim for review. The
only reference made to the Title VII claim was one sentence on the last page of his objections,
where he stated that it was error to deny his motion on the Title VII claim ‘[f]or the reasons set
forth in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.’
This bare statement, devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendations to which
he objected and why, and unsupported by legal authority, was not sufficient to preserve the Title
VII claim.”).
2

When performing such a de novo review, “[t]he judge may . . . receive further evidence. . . .” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court will ordinarily refuse to consider evidentiary
material that could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first
instance.2
When only a general objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's
report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to only a
clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2),(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition.3 Similarly, when an objection merely reiterates the same arguments made
by the objecting party in its original papers submitted to the magistrate judge, the Court subjects
that portion of the report-recommendation challenged by those arguments to only a clear error
review.4 Finally, when no objection is made to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court

2

See Paddington Partners v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132, 1137-38 (2d Cir. 1994) (“In
objecting to a magistrate's report before the district court, a party has no right to present further
testimony when it offers no justification for not offering the testimony at the hearing before the
magistrate.”) [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v.
Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 894 F.2d 36, 40, n.3 (2d Cir. 1990) (district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying plaintiff's request to present additional testimony where plaintiff “offered
no justification for not offering the testimony at the hearing before the magistrate”); cf. U. S. v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676, n.3 (1980) (“We conclude that to construe § 636(b)(1) to require the
district court to conduct a second hearing whenever either party objected to the magistrate's
credibility findings would largely frustrate the plain objective of Congress to alleviate the
increasing congestion of litigation in the district courts.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory
Committee Notes: 1983 Addition (“The term ‘de novo’ does not indicate that a secondary
evidentiary hearing is required.”).
3

See also Brown v. Peters, 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y.
Sept. 22, 1997) (Pooler, J.) [collecting cases], aff'd without opinion, 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir.
1999).
4

See Mario, 313 F.3d at 766 (“Merely referring the court to previously filed papers
or arguments does not constitute an adequate objection under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) or
Local Civil Rule 72.3(a)(3).”); Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emp. Pension Plan, 806 F.
Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992) (explaining that court need not consider objections that merely
3

subjects that portion of the 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.5
After conducting the appropriate review, the Court 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)(1)(C).
III.

ANALYSIS
Even when construed with the utmost of special liberality, the thirteen “Notices” filed by

Plaintiff after the issuance of Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation do not
specifically challenge the Report-Recommendation sufficient to transform the “Notices” into
objections to the Report-Recommendation. Because Plaintiff did not submit an objection to the
Report-Recommendation, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation only for clear error, as
described above in Part II of this Decision and Order.
After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, the Court can find no clear
error in the Report-Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the proper standards,
accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 4.) As a
constitute a "rehashing" of the same arguments and positions taken in original papers submitted
to the magistrate judge); accord, Praileau v. Cnty. of Schenectady, 09-CV-0924, 2010 WL
3761902, at *1, n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2010) (McAvoy, J.); Hickman ex rel. M.A.H. v. Astrue,
07-CV-1077, 2010 WL 2985968, at *3 & n.3 (N.D.N.Y. July 27, 2010) (Mordue, C.J.); Almonte
v. N.Y.S. Div. of Parole, 04-CV-0484, 2006 WL 149049, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006) (Sharpe,
J.).
5

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 and citations omitted).
4

result, Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety
for the reasons stated therein. (Id.)
The Court adds three brief points. First, even if Plaintiff’s thirteen “Notices” could
somehow be construed as constituting objections to the Report-Recommendation, Magistrate
Judge Baxter’s thorough and correct Report-Recommendation would survive even a de novo
review.
Second, in the alternative, the Court bases its acceptance of Magistrate Judge Baxter’s
Report-Recommendation on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, given that
Plaintiff’s prior Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Henderson, 2008 WL 2405705, at *1.
Third, while Plaintiff has filed only two actions in this District thus far, those actions
have been patently frivolous and abusive. Furthermore, from the federal judiciary’s Public
Access to Court Electronic Records Service, it is clear that Plaintiff (a/k/a “Shawndell
Henderson”) has filed approximately 15 other such baseless, if not frivolous, pro se civil rights
actions in federal court across the country–one of which as recently as four months ago. Finally,
the barrage of “Notices” and demands for payment that Plaintiff has recently submitted to this
Court in this case has convinced this Court that Plaintiff’s incorrigibly abusive filings in this case
will continue once he receives this Decision and Order. For all of these reasons, the Court finds
it necessary to direct Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty days of the date of this Decision and
Order, as to why he should not be barred from filing any future pro se submissions in this case
without prior leave of the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and the Court's inherent
authority to manage its docket so as to prevent abuse in its proceedings.

5

ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED with
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is directed to SHOW CAUSE, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of
the date of this Decision and Order, as to why he should not be barred from filing any future pro
se submissions in this case without prior leave of the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and
the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket so as to prevent abuse in its proceedings.
Dated: September 12, 2012
Syracuse, New York

6