Williams v. Richards et al

Filing 11

DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 9 Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint is sua sponte dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and that Plaintiff may refile this action only upon demonstrating that the underlying criminal indictment (or, if applicable, conviction) has been overturned or is otherwise invalidated. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/9/18. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
SHAKA D. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
8:17-CV-1138
(GTS/TWD)

v.
JEROME J. RICHARDS, Judge;
JAMES J. MINDELL, Assis. Attorney General;
JOHN W. HALLETT, Attorney; and
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General,
Defendants.
__________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
SHAKA D. WILLIAMS
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Gouverneur Correctional Facility
Scotch Settlement Road
P.O. Box 480
Gouverneur, New York 13642
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Shaka D. Williams
(“Plaintiff”), against the four above-captioned individuals (“Defendants”), is U.S. Magistrate
Judge Christian F. Hummel’s Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint
be sua sponte dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and that Plaintiff
may refile this action only upon demonstrating that the underlying criminal indictment (or, if
applicable, conviction) has been overturned or is otherwise invalidated. (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff
has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline in which to do so has

expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Based upon a careful review of this matter, the Court
can find no clear error1 in the Report-Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the
proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a
result, the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein.
(Dkt. No. 9.)
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is sua sponte DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and that Plaintiff may refile this action only upon
demonstrating that the underlying criminal indictment (or, if applicable, conviction) has been
overturned or is otherwise invalidated.
Dated: February 9, 2018
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

1

When, as here, no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court
subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),
Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” Id.: see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at
*1. (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
2