Levesque v. State Farm Ins et al

Filing 6

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Motion (Dkt. No. 3) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5); and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth in the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on May 21, 2013. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANDRE LEVESQUE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

8:13-CV-0346 (LEK/RFT)

STATE FARM INSURANCE; and NEW
YORK STATE POLICE,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on April 24,
2013, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Northern District of New York Local Rule 72.3(d). Dkt. No. 5 (“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); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c). “If no objections are filed
. . . reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error.” Edwards v.
Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107
(2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a
magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp.
2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. After a
thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court has determined that the
Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error or manifest injustice.

Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. No. 3) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5); and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED for the reasons set
forth in the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5); and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this
action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

May 21, 2013
Albany, New York

2