Rosado v. Schneiderman et al

Filing 19

ORDER: ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter filed April 29, 2014 (Dkt. No. 16 ) is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. ORDERED that the defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No . 6 ) is GRANTED, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE. ORDERED that the Clerk close this case and provide a copy of this Order to the parties in accordance to the local rules. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/18/14. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------RICHARD ROSADO
Plaintiff,
-v.Civil Action No.
9:13-cv-1133 (GLS/ATB)
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN,
et al.
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
RICHARD ROSADO
Pro Se
169300-605
CNY PC
PO Box 300
Marcy, New York 13403
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of
State of New York
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
GARY L. SHARPE,
CHIEF JUDGE

BRUCE J. BOIVIN, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General

ORDER
The above-captioned matter comes to this court following a ReportRecommendation by Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter, duly filed April 29,
2014. Following fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent
the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein.
No objections having been filed 1, and the court having reviewed the
Magistrate Judge’s Report-Recommendation for clear error, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Andrew T. Baxter filed April 29, 2014 (Dkt. No. 16) is ACCEPTED in its
entirety for the reasons stated therein; and it is further
ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 6) is
GRANTED, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE
; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case and provide a copy of this
Order to the parties in accordance to the local rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

On May 13, 2014, the plaintiff filed a letter as an objection to the Report-Recommendation and
requesting instructions on how to proceed with this case. (Dkt. No. 17). The court issued a text only order
advising plaintiff that the Court is prohibited from giving him legal advice. Furthermore, the court granted
the plaintiff an extension of time until June 16, 2014 to file written objections which specifically identify the
portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which it has an objection and the basis for
the objection. Despite the passage of the due date, the plaintiff has not filed any objections in compliance
with the court’s order.

2

Dated:

June 18, 2014
Albany, New York

3