Taylor v. State of New York et al

Filing 24

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that the Defendant's motion to Dismiss (Dkt 14 ) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 4/27/18. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ERIC J. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:17-CV-1014 (LEK/ATB)

P. SCHMIDT,
Defendant.

ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on

March 26, 2018, by the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 17 (“Report-Recommendation”). Pro se
plaintiff Eric J. Taylor timely filed objections. Dkt. No. 21 (“Objections”).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
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), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of
N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); 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). Otherwise, a
court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.
III.

DISCUSSION
Although Plaintiff submitted a filing in response to the Report-Recommendation, he

merely restated facts already presented in his complaint. Objs. at 1. The Court has reviewed the
Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Defendant’s motion to Dismiss (Dkt 14) is GRANTED and the
Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; 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.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

April 27, 2018
Albany, New York

3