Harrington v. Vadlamudi et al

Filing 32

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion (Dkt. No. 16 ) to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and t he Rehabilitation Act is GRANTED. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act are DISMISSED with leave to amend. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with these claims, he must file, within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order, an amended complaint that remedies the deficiencies identified in the Report-Recommendation. ( Case Review Deadline 10/29/2014, Show Cause Response due by 11/28/2014. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 9/29/14. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DAVID HARRINGTON,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:13-CV-0795 (LEK/RFT)

DR. VADLAMUDI; and
SANDRA MARTIN SMITH,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on September
2, 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. 28 (“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.”).
Plaintiff filed a Letter seeking guidance as to the procedure for amending a complaint, but
did not object to the Report-Recommendation. Dkt. No. 31. The Court therefore reviews the
Report-Recommendation for clear error and finds none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. No. 16) to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act are DISMISSED with leave to amend. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with these
claims, he must file, within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order, an amended complaint
that remedies the deficiencies identified in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties to this
action in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

September 29, 2014
Albany, New York

2