Holly Jarvis v. Officer Petricola, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HOLLY JARVIS, Plaintiff, 5:25-cv-1166 (ECC/DJS) v. OFFICER PETRICOLA, et al., Defendants.

Holly Jarvis., Plaintiff, pro se Hon. Elizabeth C. Coombe, United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Holly Jarvis commenced this proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart who, on September 4, 2025 granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP and issued a Report-Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 5, 6. On September 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation and an amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 7, 8. On October 30, 2025, this Court issued a text order finding that Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and referred the amended complaint to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart for review. Dkt. No. 10.

On December 5, 2025, Judge Stewart issued a Report-Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff was informed that she had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review.

Dkt. No. 11, at 9. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed.

As no objection to the Report-Recommendation has been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment.

Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety, with one clarification: Plaintiff may file an amended complaint articulating her First Amendment retaliation claim, her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, and her claim for “Supervisory Liability” within 30 days of this order.

For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Dkt. No. 8, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further; ORDERED that any amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. 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 Stewart 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. ; / 1 TT Dated: April 15, 2026 Elizabeth C. Coombe U.S. District Judge