Mills v. Genesee County et al

Filing 176

-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-DECISION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 168 . Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint is denied and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Clerk of Court to close case. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 1/8/2014. (JMB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RICHARD MILLS,
Plaintiff,
v.

DECISION AND ORDER
11-CV–383

GENESEE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

The instant matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) for supervision of all pre-trial proceedings. On
December 14, 2012, the Genesee County defendants moved, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, for dismissal of the action and other sanctions
based upon plaintiff’s intentional misrepresentations to the Court, filing of
frivolous claims, and other bad faith conduct. (Dkt. No. 129) Plaintiff, who is
proceeding pro se, has made a motion to amend his complaint. (Dkt. No. 137)
Following an evidentiary hearing and post-hearing submissions, Magistrate
Judge McCarthy found that there was clear and convincing evidence to establish
that plaintiff repeatedly lied to the Court concerning authorship of a letter to his
former wife, defendant Judy Mills. On September 19, 2013, Magistrate Judge
McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation setting forth these findings and
recommending that: (1) plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint be dismissed;
and (2) that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) and the Court’s inherent authority, as a sanction for
plaintiff’s repeated misrepresentations to the Court. (Dkt. No. 168)
On September 2, 2013, plaintiff filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 169) All defendants filed responses. (Dkt. Nos.
170, 172, and 173) Plaintiff filed a reply (Dkt. No. 175), and a sur-reply was filed
by the Monroe County defendants on October 30, 2013. (Dkt. No. 174) The
Court then deemed the matter submitted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections have been made. Upon a de novo review, and after reviewing the
submissions from the parties, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge
McCarthy’s findings in their entirety.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s
Report and Recommendation, plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint is denied
and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety and on the merits pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close
the case.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard J. Arcara
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: January 8, 2014
2