Canfield v. Tartaglia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ FREDERICK CANFIELD, a/k/a Fredrick Canfield, Plaintiff, 6:24-CV-1303 v. (GTS/TWD) PETER TARTAGLIA, Parole Ofcr.; and RICHARD KIMMERER, Parole Ofcr., Defendants. ______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: FREDERICK CANFIELD, 23-B-5349 Plaintiff, Pro Se Mohawk Correctional Facility P.O. Box 8451 Rome, New York 13440 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Frederick Canfield, a/k/a Fredrick Canfield, (“Plaintiff”) against parole officers Peter Tartaglia and Richard Kimmerer (“Defendants”), is United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report- Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be dismissed “without prejudice and with leave to amend” as barred by Heck v. Humphrey,512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 8) be denied. Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)

After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation:1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 10.) As a result, the Report- Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. (Id.) ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) shall be DISMISSED with prejudice and without further Order of this Court, UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the entry of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT that specifies the details of the revocation of his parole status resulting from the events of July 12, 2024, and whether his parole revocation has been reversed, expunged, otherwise declared invalid, as referenced in the Report-Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiff file such a timely AMENDED COMPLAINT, it shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Dancks for her review; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED.

1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. 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.”

Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Dated: March 28, 2025 Syracuse, New York Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge