Gerasimov v. Amalgamated Housing Corporation et al
ORDER for 53 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 27 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Boris Gerasimov, 31 MOTION to Change Venue, filed by Boris Gerasimov, 24 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Boris Gerasimov, 41 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Norris McLaughlin & Marcus Law Firm. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court therefore grants Defendants' motions to dismiss, dismisses Plaintiffs' Complaint in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denies Plaintiffs motions for judgment on the pleadings and for change of venue as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all pending motions, close this case, and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 1/10/2022) (jca)
Case 1:21-cv-01760-JPC-SN Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AMALGAMATED HOUSING CORP. et al.,
21 Civ. 1760 (JPC) (SN)
JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Boris Gerasimov, proceeding pro se, brings this action against his housing
cooperative which previously sought his eviction, the law firm that represented the cooperative in
those eviction proceedings against Plaintiff in housing court, and the law firm that defended the
cooperative in Plaintiff’s subsequent state court action for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff alleges
claims for violations of his constitutional rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, under the “Law of Evidence,” under the doctrine of res
judicata, under the doctrine of unclean hands, for perjury under N.Y. Penal Law § 210.10 and 18
U.S.C. § 1621, for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and under “Elder law.” Dkt. 1 at 6.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b),
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and for failure to include a necessary party as well as on
statute of limitations and res judicata grounds. Dkts. 19, 21, 43. Defendant Norris McLaughlin
& Marcus Law Firm also moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5).
Dkt. 43. Plaintiff cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. 26, and for change of venue,
Case 1:21-cv-01760-JPC-SN Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 3
Dkt. 32. On December 17, 2021, the Honorable Sarah Netburn, to whom this case has been
referred for both general supervision of pretrial proceedings and for a Report and Recommendation
on any dispositive motions, issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the
undersigned grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss, deny Plaintiff’s motions for judgment on the
pleadings and for change of venue as moot, and dismiss this action. Dkt. 53 (“R&R”).
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge” in a Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). If a party submits a timely objection to any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition, the district court will conduct a de novo review of the contested section. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If no
objections are made, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See, e.g.,
Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
The Report and Recommendation, citing both Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), advised the parties that they had fourteen days from service
of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and warned that failure to timely file
such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. R&R at 21. No objections have
been filed and the time for making any objections has passed. The parties have therefore waived
the right to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v.
Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d. Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601,
604 (2d Cir. 2008).
Notwithstanding this waiver, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and
Recommendation and finds it to be well reasoned and its conclusions well founded. Accordingly,
the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court therefore grants
Defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismisses Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety for lack of subject
Case 1:21-cv-01760-JPC-SN Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 3
matter jurisdiction, and denies Plaintiff’s motions for judgment on the pleadings and for change of
venue as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all pending motions, close
this case, and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
Dated: January 10, 2022
New York, New York
JOHN P. CRONAN
United States District Judge
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?