Mclaurin v. Onondaga County

Filing 10

DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) shall be sua sponte DISMISSED with prejudice UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT curing the pleading defects identified in the Report-Recommendation. Should Plaintiff wish to file such an Amended Complaint in this action, that Amended Complaint mu st be a complete pleading which complies with the pleading standards set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 and Local Rule 10.1 of the Districts Local Rules of Practice, and which will supercede and replace his original Complaint i n all respects. Should Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint within the thirty (30) day time period, the Amended Complaint shall be returned to Magistrate Judge Dancks for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 1/17/2023. (Copy of Decision and Order, along with blank Section 1983 Civil Rights form) served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal)

Case 5:22-cv-00373-GTS-TWD Document 10 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
CURTEZ MCLAURIN,
Plaintiff,
5:22-CV-0373
(GTS/TWD)

v.
ONONDAGA COUNTY; and
SYRACUSE POLICE DEPT.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
CURTEZ MCLAURIN, 19000388
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Onondaga County Justice Center
555 South State Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Curtez Mclaurin
(“Plaintiff”) against the two above-captioned entities (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate
Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s
Complaint be sua sponte dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to
the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally
Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge
Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-

Case 5:22-cv-00373-GTS-TWD Document 10 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation
is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be sua sponte DISMISSED
with prejudice UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Decision and Order,
Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT curing the pleading defects identified in the
Report-Recommendation; and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff wish to file such an Amended Complaint in this action,
that Amended Complaint must be a complete pleading which complies with the pleading
standards set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 and Local Rule 10.1 of the
District’s Local Rules of Practice, and which will supercede and replace his original Complaint
in all respects; and it is further
ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint within the thirty (30) day
time period, the Amended Complaint shall be returned to Magistrate Judge Dancks for further

1

When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear-error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear-error review, “the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995)
(Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which
no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
2

Case 5:22-cv-00373-GTS-TWD Document 10 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Dated: January 17, 2023
Syracuse, New York

3