miller ex v. Primo

District Court, N.D. New York

miller ex v. Primo

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAISHAWN-LAVON: MILLER EX,

Plaintiff, 5:22-cv-680 (BKS/ML)

v.

DAVID PRIMO, et al,

Defendants.

Appearances: Plaintiff Pro Se: daishawn-lavon: miller ex1 Syracuse, New York 13206

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff pro se daishawn-lavon: miller ex brought this action on June 27, 2022, alleging, inter alia, that Defendants violated his federal rights. (Dkt. No. 1). This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric who, on September 29, 2022, issued a Report- Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in its entirety with leave to amend against Defendants Bozeman and Newton. (Dkt. No. 6, at 17). Further, Judge Lovric recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Primo, Stanislaus-Fung, Temple, and Pavone be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend because Plaintiff seeks relief from Defendants who are immune from suit pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B). (Id.). Magistrate Judge Lovric advised Plaintiff that under

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1), he had fourteen days

1 Plaintiff writes his name in lowercase letters. within which to file written objections to the Report, and that the failure to object to the Report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Dkt. No. 6, at 18). Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is adopted, and the Complaint is dismissed with leave to

amend against Defendants Bozeman and Newton. This Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations 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). “A proper objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the [report-recommendation] that the objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.” Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd.,

976 F. Supp. 2d 290, 296

(E.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Properly raised objections must be “specific and clearly aimed at particular findings” in the report. Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,

602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487

(S.D.N.Y. 2009). “[E]ven 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-cv-13320,

2011 WL 3809920

at *2,

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95351

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted). Findings and recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear error.

Id.

Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts it for the reasons stated therein. For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation, (Dkt. No. 6), is ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that that Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt. No. 1), is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e); and it is further respectfully ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt. No. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND against Defendants Bozeman and Newton for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B); and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt. No. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND against Defendants Primo, Stanislaus- Fung, Temple, and Pavone because it seeks relief from defendants who are immune from suit pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B); and it is further ORDERED that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order; and any amended complaint must be a complete pleading which will replace the current complaint in total; and it is further ORDERED that if Plaintiff files a timely amended complaint, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Lovric for review; and if Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to close this case; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT ISSO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2022 Syracuse, New York Pian ah 4. Chae es Brenda K. Sannes Chief U.S. District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown