Woods v. Tompkins County et al

Filing 10

DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that the # 5 Order and Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks is APPROVED AND ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to remove Stafkings Health Care Systems, Inc. as a defendant herein. It is further ORDERED the Plaintiff's # 9 Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue a summons and forward it, along with a copy of the Amended Complaint and packet containing General Order 25, to the United States Marshal for service upon the County. It is further ORDERED that a formal response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be filed by Defendant or Defendant's Counsel as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subsequent to service of process on Defendant.Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 2/29/2016. [Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail.] (mc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LANE WOODS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

5:16-cv-0007 (LEK/TWD)

TOMPKINS COUNTY, et al.,
Defendant.

DECISION and ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January 7,

2016, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 5 (“Report-Recommendation”). Also presently before the
Court is pro se Plaintiff Lane Woods’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to amend her Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 9
(“Motion”); 9-3 (“Amended Complaint”). For the following reasons, the Report-Recommendation
is adopted in full and Plaintiff’s Motion is granted.
II.

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-0857, 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 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 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. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court
has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none. Therefore, the
Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
III.

MOTION TO AMEND
Plaintiff has requested to amend her Complaint for two reasons: 1) to remove the portions of

her Complaint that allege actions against Stafkings Health Care Systems (“Stafkings”) pursuant to
the Report-Recommendation, and 2) to correct a typographical error in the amount of damages
sought. Dkt. No. 9-1 (“Affirmation”) ¶ 2.
The filing of amended and supplemental pleadings is governed by Rule 15 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 15(a)(1) states that a party “may amend its pleading once as a matter
of course” within 21 days after service. FED. R. CIV. P. 15. Plaintiff has not yet effectuated service
of her Complaint. See Docket. Therefore, Plaintiff is able to amend her Complaint as a matter of
right. See O’Dell v. Bill, No. 13-CV-1275, 2015 WL 710544, at *44 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2015)
(noting that the plaintiff, upon dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, still had the opportunity to amend
his pleading as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(B)). The Amended Complaint is therefore
now considered the operative pleading in this action.
2

IV.

INITIAL REVIEW OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) directs that when a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, “the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that [the action] (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As a result of the ReportRecommendation’s initial review of the original Complaint, the Court held that Plaintiff’s claim
against Defendant Tompkins County (“the County”) required a response. That claim is repeated and
realleged in the Amended Complaint, with additional facts from after the original Complaint was
filed, and thus survives initial review. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6-16. Plaintiff’s claim against Stafkings in
the original Complaint is not realleged in the Amended Complaint. See Am. Compl. The only
other change in the Amended Complaint is the relief sought, now fixed at $500,000. Since this does
not affect the merits of any claims Plaintiff brings, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint
survives initial review and requires a response from the County.
V.

CONCLUSION
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 the Clerk of Court is directed to remove Stafkings as a defendant herein;
and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. No. 9) to amend the Complaint is GRANTED;
and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk shall issue a summons and forward it, along with a copy of the
3

Amended Complaint and a packet containing General Order 25, to the United States Marshal for
service upon the County; and it is further
ORDERED, that a formal response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be filed by Defendant
or Defendant’s counsel as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subsequent to service of
process on Defendant; 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:

February 29, 2016
Albany, NY

4