Williams v. Murphy et al

Filing 6

ORDER adopting the 5 Report and Recommendations and dismissing plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 5/21/18. (Copy served on plaintiff via regular mail)(rjb, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
RANDY LAQUAWN WILLIAMS TRUST,
Plaintiff,
v.

5:18-CV-0168 (BKS/DEP)

JAMES P. MURPHY, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________
Appearances:
Randy Laquawn Williams
# 00000607
Onondaga County Justice Center
555 South State Street
Syracuse, NY 13201
Plaintiff, pro se

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Randy Laquawn Williams Trust (the “Trust”), appearing pro se through trustee
Randy Laquawn Williams, commenced this action on February 9, 2018, asserting claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge
David E. Peebles who, on February 16, 2018, issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and staying this case for sixty days in order to (1) give the
Trust an opportunity to retain counsel and pay the applicable filing fee for the action; or (2) name
Randy Laquawn Williams, as trustee on behalf of the Randy Laquawn Williams Trust, as
plaintiff, file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for Williams, as trustee, and also retain
counsel to represent Williams, as trustee. (Dkt. No. 4). Magistrate Judge Peebles explained that

the Complaint was deficient because a pro se trustee may not represent the Trust. (Id., at 6).
Plaintiff was advised that if neither of these two events occurred on or before the expiration of
the sixty-day period, the court would recommend that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Id., at
7). Plaintiff did not file anything in response to this Order. On April 26, 2018, Magistrate Judge
Peebles issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 5). Magistrate Judge Peebles advised
Plaintiff that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), he had fourteen days within which to file written
objections to the report, and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would
preclude appellate review. (Dkt. No. 5, at 3). No objections to the Report and Recommendation
have been filed.
As no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time for
filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error.
See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report and
Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
For these reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety, without prejudice;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon plaintiff in accordance with

2

the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 21, 2008
Syracuse, New York

3