Irwin v. Plattsburgh City Police Dept. et al

Filing 16

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as modified; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 9) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs second Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on October 16, 2014. ***A copy of this order was served upon the pro se plaintiff by regular US mail. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TIMOTHY L. IRWIN,
Plaintiff,
-against-

8:14-CV-0444 (LEK/RFT)

PLATTSBURGH CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT; DARIN M. PERROTTE;
VASSAR; and LT. RASCO,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on September
5, 2014, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 11 (“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.”).
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court
has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none. The Court notes,
however, that subsequent to the filing of the Report-Recommendation, which recommends dismissal
of the Complaint with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 14.
Therefore, the portion of the Report-Recommendation dismissing Plaintiff’s original Complaint is
rejected as moot.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as modified; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 9) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s second Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 15)
is DENIED as moot;1 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:

October 16, 2014
Albany, New York

1

Because the Court grants Plaintiff’s first Application to proceed in forma pauperis, the
second Application is therefore moot.
2