Waters v. Prack et al

Filing 73

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 64 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 24 ) for summary judgment is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 3/31/15. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEITH WATERS, Plaintiff, -against- 9:13-CV-1437 (LEK/DEP) ALBERT PRACK, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________ ORDER This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on March 5, 2015, 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. 64 (“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.”). 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. 64) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. No. 24) for summary judgment is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 31, 2015 Albany, New York 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?