Lewis v. Stanton

Filing 103

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 101 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 88 ) is DENIED. ORDERED, that any claims against the remaining John Doe Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 12/29/16. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
REUBEN LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:13-CV-01172 (LEK/TWD)

STANTON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on
November 3, 2016, 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. 101 (“Report-Recommendation”).
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); 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).
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. 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. 101) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 88) is DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED, that any claims against the remaining John Doe Defendants are
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); 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.

DATED:

December 29, 2016
Albany, New York

2