Latulas v. SpotCrime.com

Filing 33

DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy's 25 Report and Recommendation. Defendant's 4 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the case is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall take all steps necessary to close the case. A copy of the Decision and Order has been mailed to Mark Latulas, 303 North St., No. 58, Buffalo, NY 14201. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 3/23/2022. (LAS)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________
MARK LATULAS,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
17-CV-802

v.
SPOTCRIME.COM,
Defendant.
______________________________________

The instant civil case filed by Plaintiff Mark Latulas, pro se, was referred to
Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1) to
conduct pretrial proceedings. Dkt. No. 18.
Defendant ReportSee, Inc. (incorrectly sued as “spotcrime.com”) moved for
summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Dkt. No. 4), and
on November 18, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. No. 25) recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claim for defamation on the basis that it is timebarred by New York’s one-year statute of limitations.
On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
2022.

Dkt. No. 27.

Defendant responded (Dkt. 29) on January 3,

No reply has been filed by Plaintiff, although he subsequently filed a motion

to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 30) and a request for a subpoena (Dkt. No. 31).
matter is considered submitted on the papers.

The

The Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Report and
Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1), which provides that to the
extent a party makes a timely and specific objection to a Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, the standard of review is de novo.
Plaintiff appears to argue in his objections that he brought this civil action
within one year of his discovery of the alleged defamatory statement.

As noted by

the Magistrate Judge, however, “there is no ‘discovery rule’ exception to New York’s
one-year statute of limitations.”

Dkt. No. 25, p. 2.

Upon due consideration of the parties’ respective papers and arguments, the
Court adopts the conclusion and reasoning of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. No. 25) and this Decision and Order, Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. No. 4) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is GRANTED;
it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s remaining claim for defamation is DISMISSED, with
prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 30) is DENIED
as moot; and it is further

2

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena or deposition (Dkt. No. 31) is
DENIED as moot, and Plaintiff’s motion for production of documents (Dkt. No. 9) is
likewise DENIED as moot, as recommended in the Report and Recommendation.
The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any
appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and leave to appeal to the
Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438 (1962).

Further requests to proceed on appeal as a poor person should

be directed, on motion, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Defendant and shall take
all steps necessary to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__s/Richard J. Arcara________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated:

March 23, 2022

3