UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAVID JOHN CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:23-cv-01337 (AMN/ML)

NEW YORK STATE POLICE et al.,

Defendants.

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

DAVID JOHN CAMPBELL 5 Bradley Street Binghamton, New York 13904 Plaintiff, pro se

Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:

ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On October 30, 2023, pro se plaintiff David John Campbell (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action pursuant to

(“Section 1983”) against numerous defendants (“Defendants”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff sought and ultimately received leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 2, 4–5, 7. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Miroslav Lovric, who reviewed the Complaint pursuant to

(e) and, on April 19, 2024, recommended that the Complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 7 (“Initial Report-Recommendation”). On April 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt. No. 8. On June 20, 2024, the Court adopted the Initial Report- Recommendation in its entirety, dismissed the Complaint, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend certain of his claims. Dkt. No. 9. On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 11 (“Amended Complaint”). Magistrate Judge Lovric reviewed the Amended Complaint pursuant to

(e) and, on December 30, 2024, recommended that the Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. Dkt. No. 12 (“Report-Recommendation”). Magistrate Judge Lovric advised that pursuant to

(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days within which to file

written objections and that failure to object to the Report-Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review.

.1 Plaintiff filed objections on January 7, 2025. Dkt. No. 13. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. 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.

(b)(1)(C). “To be ‘specific,’ the objection must, with particularity, ‘identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings,

recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.’” Petersen v. Astrue,

, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 72.1(c)). If no specific objections have been filed, this Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen,

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s notes to 1983 addition). Similarly, when a party files “[g]eneral or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same arguments [previously] presented to the magistrate judge,” the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s

1 Citations to docket entries utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic filing system, and not the documents’ internal pagination. report-recommendations for clear error. O’Diah v. Mawhir, No. 08-cv-322,

, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations omitted); accord Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2002) (a “statement, devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendations to which [the plaintiff] objected and why, and unsupported by legal authority, was not sufficient to preserve” a claim); 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. 21-cv-01138,

, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-0367,

, 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,

(N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner,

(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.

(quoting Traguth v. Zuck,

(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-cv-13320,

, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No. 22-cv-567,

, 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.”

(b)(1)(C). III. DISCUSSION The Court adopts those aspects of the Report-Recommendation to which no 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.

As set forth in greater detail in the Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff’s allegations appear to primarily arise from his interactions with various government employees and their employers in connection with extreme risk protection orders issued by New York State Supreme Court, Broome County and the handling of certain of Plaintiff’s firearms and related property.2 See Dkt. No. 11; Dkt. No. 12 at 2–7. The Amended Complaint identifies as defendants (i) Broome County, the County’s sheriff, deputy sheriff, and an assistant district attorney; (ii) the City of Binghamton, the City’s mayor, the City’s police chief, and two officers within the City’s police department; and (iii) an unknown New York State Police officer (collectively, “Defendants”). See Dkt. No. 11. The Amended Complaint asserts alleged violations of the United States Constitution and New

York State Penal Law.

at 34–35; Dkt. No. 12 at 6–7. Magistrate Judge Lovric determined that the allegations in the Amended Complaint were frivolous. Dkt. No. 12 at 7–9. As to the alleged constitutional violations, Magistrate Judge Lovric alternatively found that the Amended Complaint did not allege any personal involvement by numerous defendants and did not allege any municipal policy or custom.

9–11. As to the alleged violations of state law, Magistrate Judge Lovric alternatively found that the cited criminal

2 Plaintiff is also pursuing a second action related to certain of these allegations. See Campbell v. City of Binghamton, NY et al., Case No. 24-cv-00067 (N.D.N.Y.). statute did not provide a private right of action. /d. at 11. As a result, Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended dismissing the Amended Complaint without leave to amend. /d. at 11-12. Plaintiff made a submission in opposition to the Report-Recommendation. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiffs conclusory arguments do not meaningfully challenge Magistrate Judge Lovric’s determination that the Amended Complaint’s allegations were frivolous. To the extent Plaintiffs submission sets forth specific objections, the Court finds them unpersuasive. Following de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lovric’s findings and recommendations for the reasons set forth 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. 12, is ADOPTED in its entirety; and the Court further ORDERS that the Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 11, is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules, and close this case.* IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2025 Quel | l | Jaraaeer Albany, New York Anne M. Nardacci U.S. District Judge

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