Pooler v. Squire et al.

Filing 12

DECISION AND ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs motion for writ of mandamus (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on July 28, 2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KEITH POOLER,
Plaintiff,
-against-

8:16-MC-0049 (LEK/DJS)

HON. CATHERINE SCHAWE, et al.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 4,

2017, by the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 10 (“Report-Recommendation”). Plaintiff timely filed objections.
Dkt. No. 11 (“Objections”).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s

report-recommendation, 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. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18,
2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), overruled on
other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. (SUNY) at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir.
2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-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.”). “A [district]
judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court that purports to object to the Report-

Recommendation, but it does not set forth any arguments against Judge Stewart’s findings and
recommendations. Objs. Instead, it simply informs the Court that Plaintiff is filing a “Letter of
Objection.” Id. Thus, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has
found none.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for writ of mandamus (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

DATED:

July 28, 2017
Albany, New York

3