Clare-Lunny v. Lunny

Filing 6

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on July 23, 2014. ***A copy of this order was served upon the pro se plaintiff by Certified US mail. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DEMETRIA CLARE-LUNNY,
Plaintiff,
-against-

6:14-CV-351 (LEK/ATB)

WILLIAM KEVIN LUNNY, SR.,
Defendant.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on April 2,
2014, 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. 4 (“Report-Recommendation”).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, 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. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A., 434 F. App’x 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011); Barnes v. Prack, No.
11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d
301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 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.”).

Plaintiff Demetria Clare-Lunny (“Plaintiff”) timely filed Objections to the ReportRecommendation. Dkt. No. 5 (“Objections”). Plaintiff’s Objections consist of a single page
describing her current psychological state and a history of domestic abuse. See Objs. Although
compelling and sad, Plaintiff’s Objections are mere reiterations of the allegations considered by
Judge Baxter. See id.; Report-Rec.; Dkt. No. 1 at 12. The Court therefore reviews the ReportRecommendation for clear error and finds none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and
it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court close this case; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance
with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

July 23, 2014
Albany, New York

2