Rech v. Monroe County et al
Filing
83
DECISION AND ORDER denying 77 motion to amend and for disqualification and sanctions ; adopting 82 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 8/25/2020. This Decision and NEF were mailed to pro se Plaintiff. (BJJ)
Case 6:17-cv-06418-FPG-MWP Document 83 Filed 08/25/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL RECH,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case # 17-CV-6418-FPG
DECISION AND ORDER
MONROE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
On June 5, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Michael Rech filed a complaint alleging constitutional
violations arising out of his March 15, 2016 arrest and related criminal proceedings, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed a motion for miscellaneous relief on January 27,
2020, requesting, among other things, leave to amend the complaint to add as defendants Michele
Crain—the attorney of record for Defendants—and Christyn Musso, and to disqualify Crain from
representing Defendants in the pending action. ECF No. 77. Magistrate Judge Payson issued a
Report and Recommendation on July 24, 2020 (the “R&R”), recommending that the part of
Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to amend, disqualification, and sanctions be denied. ECF No. 82.
No party filed objections to Magistrate Judge Payson’s R&R, and the time to do so has
expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), a district court “shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). When a party does not object to the R&R,
as here, however, the court will review it for clear error. EEOC v. AZ Metro Distributors, LLC,
272 F. Supp. 3d 336, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Dafeng Hengwei Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus.
& Commercial Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 279, 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)). “When performing such a ‘clear
error’ review, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
Case 6:17-cv-06418-FPG-MWP Document 83 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 2
in order to accept the recommendation.” Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 677, 686
(N.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, the
court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Since no objections were filed here, the Court is not required to conduct a de novo review
of the R&R. Furthermore, having reviewed the record and the R&R, the Court has not identified
any plain error requiring correction. 1 As Judge Payson correctly noted, Plaintiff fails to allege that
Crain or Musso were personally involved in the constitutional violations of which he complains,
rendering his allegations insufficient to state a claim against them. Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated
that disqualification or sanctions is justified.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Payson’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No.
82, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend and for disqualification and sanctions, ECF No. 77.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 25, 2020
Rochester, New York
1
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
In any event, even applying a de novo standard of review, this Court would reach the same conclusion.
2
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?