Ball v. Criminal Investigations Department et al

Filing 8

DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T Suddaby on 6/4/2024. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular and certified mail)(sal )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ DENYALL BALL, Plaintiff, 5:24-CV-0438 (GTS/TWD) v. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DEPT., and WATERTOWN POLICE DEPT. Defendants. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: DENYALL BALL Plaintiff, Pro Se 423 South Hamilton Street Watertown, New York 13601 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Denyall Ball (“Plaintiff”) against the Criminal Investigations Department and the Watertown Police Department (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ ReportRecommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the ReportRecommendation, and the time in 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- 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 stated therein, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Dated: June 4, 2024 Syracuse, New York 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

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?