Phillips v. Syracuse Police Department et al
Filing
8
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as to defendants Syracuse Police Department and Ferrante; it i s further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as to defendants City of Syracuse, Braun, Fura, Staub, and Rigby; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim relating to the search of Pl aintiffs vehicle is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs claim of malicious prosecution is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the case proceeds as to Plaintiffs claims of false arrest against Proud and the John Doe defendant, if he can be identified and timely served; and it is further ORDERED, that this case be referred to Judge Baxter for further proceedings, including the ordering of service on the appropriate defendant(s) Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on June 28, 2018. (Copy served via regular mail)(sas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AMIARA PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,
-against-
5:18-CV-0029 (LEK/ATB)
DAVID PROUD, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on
March 14, 2018, 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. 7 (“Report-Recommendation”).
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
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), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of
N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); 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.” § 636(b). Otherwise, a
court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.
III.
DISCUSSION
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.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as
to defendants Syracuse Police Department and Ferrante; it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice
as to defendants City of Syracuse, Braun, Fura, Staub, and Rigby; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim relating to the search of Plaintiff’s
vehicle is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s claim of malicious prosecution is DISMISSED without
prejudice; and it is further
2
ORDERED, that the case proceeds as to Plaintiff’s claims of false arrest against Proud
and the John Doe defendant, if he can be identified and timely served; and it is further
ORDERED, that this case be referred to Judge Baxter for further proceedings, including
the ordering of service on the appropriate defendant(s); 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:
June 28, 2018
Albany, New York
3
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?