Robinson v. Buffalo City Police Department et al

Filing 60

DECISION AND ORDER denying 55 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; adopting Report and Recommendations in its entirety re 59 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 11/14/17. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALICIA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
DECISION and ORDER
No. 1:16-cv-00432-MJR-MAT

-vsTHE CITY OF BUFFALO, THE CITY OF
BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL
DERENDA, COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY
OF BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
BUFFALO POLICE NARCOTICS
LIEUTENANT PAUL DELANO, BUFFALO
POLICE NARCOTICS DETECTIVE PATRICK
O’ROURKE, Former BUFFALO POLICE
NARCOTICS OFFICER DETECTIVE RAY
KRUG, LIEUTENANT NORMAN G HARTMAN
OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION
OF THE BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
THE CITY OF LACKAWANNA, LIEUTENANT
AARON BRENNAN OF THE CITY OF
LACKAWANNA POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE
COUNTY OF ERIE, ERIE COUNTY
SHERIFF TIMOTHY HOWARD, and to
this point at least ONE OFFICER
JOHN DOE OF THE CITY OF THE
BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT, and ONE
OFFICER JOHN DOE OF THE ERIE
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court following a Report and
Recommendation
Honorable

(Dkt

Michael

J.

#59)

filed

Roemer,

on

October

United

States

24,

2017,

Magistrate

by

the

Judge,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72(b) and (c)
of

the

Western

District

of

New

York.

In

his

Report

and

Recommendation (“R&R”), Judge Roemer recommended that counseled

plaintiff Alicia Robinson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Dkt #55) on her appeal of this Court’s Decision and Order entered
May 12, 2017 (Dkt #45)1 be denied, because any appeal of that
Decision and Order would be frivolous and not taken in good faith,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
The

R&R

was

served

electronically

to

both

parties

on

October 24, 2017. The parties were given fourteen (14) days from
the date of their receipt of the R&R to file objections to it, and
were

specifically

informed

that

any

objections

were

due

by

November 13, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed, and
neither party has sought an extension of time in which to file
objections.
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
a district court is required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge[,]” id.
Where no “specific written objection” is made to portions of the
magistrate judge’s report, the district court may adopt those
portions, “as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the
1

In the May 12, 2017, Decision and Order, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
complaint as to all of the City of Buffalo defendants and the Erie County
defendants, leaving only the City of Lackawanna defendants. Plaintiff filed a
stipulation of discontinuance as to the Lackawanna defendants on August 23, 2017
(Dkt #50), which was so ordered by the Court on August 25, 2017 (Dkt #51). The
case was closed on August 29, 2017.

-2-

findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Eisenberg v. New England
Motor Freight, Inc., 564 F. Supp.2d 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985); other citation omitted). The district court is not required
to review any portion of a magistrate judge’s report that is not
the subject of an objection. Eisenberg, 564 F. Supp.2d at 227
(citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149).
As noted above, no objections were made to any portion of the
R&R. The Court has reviewed Judge Roemer’s thorough and wellreasoned R&R, and finds that it is not clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. The Court accordingly accepts all of the findings
and recommendations therein.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the R&R (Dkt #59) is adopted in its entirety; and
it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal (Dkt #55) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca

HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
DATED:

November 14, 2017
Rochester, New York

-3-

-4-