Morris v. King et al

Filing 26

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 22 ) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 11/17/17. {order served via regular mail and certified mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
REGAN MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:16-CV-1533 (LEK/TWD)

WENDY KING, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a report-recommendation filed on
October 13, 2017, 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. 24 (“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); 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.” § 636(b).

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Thus, 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. 24) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 22) is GRANTED and
Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute;
and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

November 17, 2017
Albany, New York

2