Coleman v. Hanuszczak
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER adopting Report-Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter, Dkt. No. 6 . ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii). Signed by Senior District Judge Norman A. Mordue on 8/22/2016. (lah)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL L. HANUSZCZAK,
231 Lilac Street
Syracuse, NY 13208
Plaintiff, pro se
Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Senior U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On June 22, 2016, plaintiff filed four separate civil rights complaints in one action. (Dkt.
No. 1). Each is brought pursuant to a different civil rights statute. Plaintiff has also filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. Nos.
2, 3). On June 28, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter issued a thorough
Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) granting plaintiff’s IFP application, denying
plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, and recommending dismissal with prejudice of the
entire action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has
filed an objection. (Dkt. No. 7).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo those parts of the
Report-Recommendation to which plaintiff specifically objects. Where, however, an objecting
party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments,
the Court reviews for clear error. See Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
When no objections are made, the Court conducts clear error review. See Kaboggozamusoke v.
Rye Town Hilton Hotel, 370 F. App’x 246, 248, n.1 (2d Cir. 2010).
Magistrate Judge Baxter thoroughly discussed plaintiff’s allegations that Judge
Hanuszczak violated a variety of her constitutional rights, improperly issued a search warrant for
her home, and decided her case based on the perjured testimony of three social workers, that he
was biased against her and retaliated against her, and that he refused to recuse himself, ultimately
having her “kids removed for no cause on 6/21/16.” Judge Baxter concluded that judicial
immunity bars plaintiff’s action in federal court, as his actions were taken completely within his
judicial capacity, and exercising his judicial functions in a case over which he had jurisdiction.
Rather than address these conclusions in her objection, plaintiff simply re-states her belief that
Judge Hanuszczak “unlawfully took [her] kids.” (Dkt. No. 7)
After thorough review of the record and applicable law, the Court agrees with Magistrate
Judge Baxter’s analysis. Plaintiff’s allegations cannot state a claim against these defendants in
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) of United States
Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter is accepted and adopted; and it is further
ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this MemorandumDecision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 22, 2016
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?