Obot v. Internal Revenue Service

Filing 21

-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio's Report and Recommendation 10 as filed on September 26, 2013. Defendant's motion to dismiss 2 is granted, and plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint 5 is denied as futile. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 2/19/15. (LAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OTU A. OBOT,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
12-CV-1053-A

v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

This action was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio for the conduct of
pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On September 26, 2013,
Magistrate Judge Foschio recommended that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 2) be granted, and that plaintiff Obot’s request to
amend his pleading (Dkt. No. 5) be denied as futile.
Plaintiff Obot objected to the Report and Recommendation and also filed an
appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals of an Order of the Court adopting the
Report and Recommendation entered before plaintiff’s objections were docketed and
considered by the Court. The Court thereafter entered an indicative ruling pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 that the Court would consider the late-received objections to the
Report and Recommendation if the Court of Appeals were to remand the case. Plaintiff
thereafter moved to withdraw his appeal and the motion was granted.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record in
this case, and the pleadings and materials submitted by the parties, including the
objections of plaintiff Obot, and it is hereby

ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth
in Magistrate Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10), defendant’s
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 2) is granted, and
plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 5) is denied as
futile. Because subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims is lacking, the Court has
no authority to entertain his claims, and plaintiff’s proposed amendments of his pleading
raise no claims within the Court’s authority.
The Clerk of Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____Richard J. Arcara____________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: February 19, 2015