Hallock v. United States of America

Filing 17

DECISION AND ORDER: ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING the # 12 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims for recovery of damages for violation of his constitutional rights are DISMISSED and this matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Peebles for an evidentiary hearing. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 10/13/2010. {Copy sent to pro se Plaintiff by regular mail} (mae)

Hallock v. United States of America

Doc. 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------RICHARD HALLOCK, Plaintiff, - vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. -----------------------------------APPEARANCES: RICHARD HALLOCK Plaintiff, Pro Se 3965 1st Avenue NW Naples, FL 34119 HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York P. O. Box 7198 100 South Clinton Street Syracuse, New York 13261-5165 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Richard Hallock, the named plaintiff, brought this action in October 2009, for the return of certain property. By Report-Recommendation dated July 28, 2010, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that plaintiff's claims for recovery of damages for violation of his constitutional rights be dismissed; and further recommended that an evidentiary hearing be scheduled to address the factual issues of whether plaintiff has standing to bring this proceeding, whether the statute of limitations CHARLES E. ROBERTS, ESQ. Assistant U.S. Attorney OF COUNSEL: 6:09-CV-1141

Dockets.Justia.com

should be equitably tolled, and whether the defendant remains in possession of the property at issue. The parties have filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. Based upon a de novo review of the entire file, including the portions of the ReportRecommendation to which the parties have objected, and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Peebles, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's claims for recovery of damages for violation of his constitutional rights are DISMISSED; 2. This matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for an evidentiary hearing to address the factual issues of whether plaintiff has standing to bring this proceeding, whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled, and whether the defendant remains in possession of the property at issue. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2010 Utica, New York.

-2-