Beamon v. Mills et al
ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendations and dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, with prejudice, in its entirety. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 3/30/17. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(rjb, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IAN WESLEY BURR BEAMON,
KRISTYNA S. MILLS, et al.,
Ian Wesley Burr Beamon
Plaintiff, pro se
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, U. S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On October 25, 2016, Plaintiff Ian Wesley Burr Beamon commenced this pro se action
for “breach of fiduciary duty” against Kristyna Mills and the Jefferson County District
Attorney’s Office. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Andrew T. Baxter who, on October 28, 2016, issued an Order and Report-Recommendation
recommending that the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim. (Dkt. No. 6, p. 7). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on November 14, 2016. (Dkt.
No. 7). Accordingly, on December 9, 2016, this Court rejected the Report-Recommendation as
moot in light of the Amended Complaint, and referred the Amended Complaint to Magistrate
Judge Baxter for his review. (Dkt. No. 9).
On December 13, 2016, United States Magistrate Andrew T. Baxter issued an Order and
Report-Recommendation recommending that the Amended Complaint be dismissed in its
entirety as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 11, p. 12). Magistrate Judge
Baxter notified Plaintiff that he had fourteen days to file written objections to the report under 28
U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and that the failure to object to the Report within fourteen days would preclude
appellate review. (Dkt. No. 11, p. 13). On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document
entitled “Notice and Response to Order and Recommendation,” which was docketed as an
objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 14). Magistrate Judge Baxter’s December
13, 2016 Report-Recommendation is currently pending before the Court.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v.
Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A proper
objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the [Report and Recommendation] that the
objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.” Kruger v. Virgin Atlantic
Airways, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 2d 290, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted). Properly raised
objections must be “specific and clearly aimed at particular findings” in the Report. Molefe v.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Findings and
recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear
error. Id. “To the extent . . . that the party makes only conclusory or general arguments . . . the
Court will review the Report strictly for clear error.” DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F Supp. 2d
333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
In this case, the Court has been unable to decipher any specific objection to any portion
of the Report-Recommendation in Plaintiff’s Response. Plaintiff’s few passing assertions that
the Magistrate Judge’s proceeding was “counter to equity,” (Dkt No. 14, pp. 4, 194), are
insufficient to constitute proper objections and are, in any event, frivolous. The Court has,
therefore, reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED in all
respects; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 7) is DISMISSED with
prejudice in its entirety as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision
and Order in accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2017
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?