Carter Center v. Catholic Charities

Filing 10

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on July 02, 2015.***A copy of this order & subsequent judgment was served upon the pro se plaintiff by Certified US mail. (sas) Modified on 7/2/2015 to add service langiage(sas).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LARRY CARTER CENTER,
Plaintiff,
-against-

5:15-CV-0597 (LEK/ATB)

CATHOLIC CHARITIES,
d/b/a Homeless Veterans Services,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 21,
2015, by the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 5 (“Report Recommendation”). Pro se Plaintiff Larry
Carter Center (“Plaintiff”) timely filed objections. Dkt. No. 7 (“Objections”).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, 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 a party objects to a reportrecommendation, “the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo
review.” Williams v. Roberts, No. 11-CV-0029, 2012 WL 760777, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2012)
(citing FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)); see also United States v. Male
Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). 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 should review that aspect of a report-recommendation for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No.
11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d

301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 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 religating 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).
Plaintiff objects to Judge Baxter’s finding that Catholic Charities is a private entity. Objs. at
2. However, Plaintiff’s objection to this finding is a mere reiteration of allegations made in the
Complaint. See generally id. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the entirety of the ReportRecommendation 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 Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); and it is further
ORDERED, that the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

July 02, 2015
Albany, New York

2