Perry v. Ogdensburg Correctional Facility et al

Filing 70

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 68 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Plaintiff is permitted to pursue the cause(s) of action alleged in his Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 32 ). ORDERED, that this matter be returned to Magistrate Judge Dancks to reset pretrial deadlines. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 7/13/15. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HOWARD PERRY,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:10-CV-1033 (LEK/TWD)

AMANDA RUPERT; MARY CORYER;
LAWRENCE SEARS,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 27,
2015, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 68 (“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 a party objects to a reportrecommendation, “the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo
review.” Williams v. Roberts, No. 11-CV-0029, 2012 WL 760777, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2012)
(citing FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)); see also United States v. Male
Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). 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 should review that aspect of a report-recommendation for clear error. 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 religating 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).
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.
Accordingly it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 68) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff is permitted to pursue the cause(s) of action alleged in
his Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 32); and it is further
ORDERED, that this matter be returned to Magistrate Judge Dancks to reset pretrial
deadlines; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

July 13, 2015
Albany, New York

2