Lamothe v. Rutland Superior Court Clerks

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Adopting 6 Report and Recommendation; 7 Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. Signed by Judge Anne M. Nardacci on 5/8/2024. (law)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
JEFFREY LAMOTHE,
Plaintiff,
v.

2:23-cv-00031 (AMN/CFH)

RUTLAND SUPERIOR COURT CLERKS,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

JEFFREY LAMOTHE
17 Potter Avenue, Apt. B
Granville, New York 12832
Plaintiff, pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This case was assigned to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New

York, following the decision by United States Chief District Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford to
disqualify the United States District Court for the District of Vermont pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 455(a). Dkt. Nos. 2, 4. Plaintiff pro se Jeffrey Lamothe filed this action in the District of
Vermont, raising claims against the Rutland, Vermont Superior Court Clerks. Dkt. No. 1-2
(“Complaint”). His claims appear to be related to other claims he has filed in the District of
Vermont. This Court (McAvoy, J.)1 referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge
Christian F. Hummel for a Report-Recommendation. Dkt. No. 5.

1

The case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned. Dkt. No. 8.

Because Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended permitting Plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis, Magistrate Judge Hummel performed an initial review of the Complaint to determine
whether service was warranted. In his Report-Recommendation and Order dated June 27, 2023
(“Report-Recommendation”), Magistrate Judge Hummel noted that the one-page Complaint is
addressed to “Federal Court Clerks,” “Vermont Attorney Generals,” and “Senator Sanders,” and
appears to seek default judgments in several court cases. Dkt. No. 6 at 6.2 The Complaint then
moves for “summary judgment” and seeks judgment on the instant case. Id. Magistrate Judge
Hummel found that the Complaint is nearly identical to other cases filed by Plaintiff and provides
no factual or legal allegations but instead simply seeks relief, never explaining the basis for
Plaintiff’s claims. Id. at 6-7. The Complaint, Magistrate Judge Hummel concluded, does not
provide a defendant with any means of discerning the nature of the claims against that defendant.
Id. at 7. Pointing to the fact that Plaintiff has filed a number of similarly baseless claims in this
Court and noting that Plaintiff has not availed himself of the opportunity amend similar claims in
other cases, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended that the dismissal be with prejudice. Id.
Last, Magistrate Judge Hummel advised that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen
days within which to file written objections and that failure to object to the ReportRecommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Id. at 8.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety.

2

Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
2

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation

that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223,
228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no specific objections have been filed, this
Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen, 2 F.
Supp. 3d at 229 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition).
Similarly, if an objection simply rehashes arguments originally presented to the magistrate judge,
this Court reviews the relevant portions of the report-recommendation for clear error. See
Petersen, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 228-29 & n.6 (collecting cases). “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 in
order to accept the recommendation.’” Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:21-CV-01138
(MAD/TWD), 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., No. 1:17-CV-0367 (GTS/WBC), 2017 WL 5484663, at *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14,
2017)).
“[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than
that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289,
295 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (additional citations
omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “‘make reasonable allowances
to protect pro se litigants’” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a
legal education. Govan, 289 F. Supp. 2d at 295 (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir.
1983)). That said, “even a pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be
specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal . . . .” Machicote v.
Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 13320 (DAB)(JCF), 2011 WL 3809920, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011)

3

(citations omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No. 1:22-cv-567 (BKS/CFH), 2022 WL 16918287,
at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). After 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).
III.

DISCUSSION
The Court adopts those aspects of the Report-Recommendation to which neither party has

raised a specific objection, finding no clear error therein, including the background and the legal
framework set forth in the Report-Recommendation, familiarity with which is presumed for
purposes of this decision.
Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report-Recommendation. Instead, Plaintiff re-filed
the Complaint in this case. Compare Dkt. No. 1-2, with Dkt. No. 7. The Court does not consider
re-filing the document that initiated the action as an objection to Magistrate Judge Hummel’s
conclusion that the Complaint fails to raise a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court
finds that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error. Further, even after
de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hummel’s findings for the reasons stated
in the Report-Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 6, is ADOPTED in its entirety; and

the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 1,
is GRANTED; and the Court further

4

ORDERS that the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1-2, is DISMISSED with prejudice and without
leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2024
Albany, New York

3

The Clerk has previously provided Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions herein.
5