Phillips v. Proud et al
AMENDED ORDER: Amending the # 10 Order on the # 9 Report and Recommendations, amended to direct the Clerk to issue a summons for defendant David Metz, as he was inadvertently omitted from the previous order, the Clerk is also directed to schedule a Rule 16 Conference now that the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/10/2017. (Copy served upon the Pro Se Plaintiff via regular mail, as well as upon the Office of Corporation Counsel for the City of Syracuse, the Onondaga County Attorney's Office and the Attorney General of the State of New York) (jmb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DAVID PROUD, et al.,
This matter comes before the Court following an Order and Report-Recommendation
filed on November 1, 2016, 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. 9 (“Report-Recommendation”). Order
amends  Order dated 3/09/2017.
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); 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-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.” 28 U.S.C. § 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 Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is APPROVED
and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that any claims against defendants Syracuse Police Department, U.S.
Marshal’s Service, New York State Division of Parole, G.I.V.E. Operation Impact, State of New
York, and Gang Violence Task Force are DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall issue summonses and forward them, along
with copies of the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1), to the United States Marshal for service upon
defendants David Proud, Paul Rigby, Michael Ferrante, Paul Casler, City of Syracuse, William
Summers, Scott Fura, Jason Eiffel, David Metz, and Jeffrey Ballagh. The Clerk shall also
forward a copy of the summons and Complaint to the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the
City of Syracuse, the Onondaga County Attorney’s Office, and the Attorney General of the State
of New York, together with a copy of the Report-Recommendation; and it is further
ORDERED, that a formal response to Phillips’s Complaint shall be filed by the
remaining defendants or defendants’ counsel as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
subsequent to service of process on the remaining defendants; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk schedule a Rule 16 conference and issue a packet containing
General Order 25, which sets forth the Civil Case Management Plan used by the Northern
District of New York. The General Order 25 packet shall be forwarded to the United States
Marshal for service upon Defendants; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Phillips in accordance with the
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 10, 2017
Albany, New York
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?