Martin v. St. Camillus et al

Filing 7

ORDERED, the Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Martins Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on March 08, 2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TIMOTHY B. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
-against-

5:17-CV-70 (LEK/ATB)

ST. CAMILLUS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following an Order and Report-Recommendation
filed on January 31, 2017, 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. 6 (“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-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, the Order and Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Martin’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety
without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Martin in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

March 08, 2017
Albany, New York

2