Opinion
08 Civ. 6041 (BSJ)(HBP)
08-15-2012
ADELL P. ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. CORTESIA NORMAN et al., Defendants.
Order
BARBARA. S. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, pro se, sued the defendants for violating her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conspiring to violate her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and for committing several state law torts. On October 31, 2011, the City of Mount Vernon Defendants (which includes the City of Mount Vernon, the Mount Vernon Police Department, the Commissioner of Police of Mount Vernon, and the former Commissioner of Police of Mount Vernon) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. On December 6, 2011, Defendant Ernest Usher also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss Plaintiff's claims.
On July 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court vacate the entry of default against Defendant Usher and grant the motions to dismiss the claims against Defendant Usher and the City of Mount Vernon Defendants. On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff timely objected to the Report and Recommendation. When objections are made to a Report and Recommendation on a dispositive motion, the Court reviews the recommendation de novo and may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). If the objections are perfunctory, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error, as if no objections were made. See Sabilia v. Richmond, No. 11 Civ. 739, 2012 WL 213656, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2012) (citing McDonaugh v. Astrue, 672 F. Supp. 2d 542, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)); Pinkney v. Progressive Home Health Servs., No. 06 Civ. 5023, 2008 WL 2811816, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2008).
Plaintiff has only offered bald objections that do not possess the specificity needed to warrant de novo review. The objections of pro se litigants are read as favorably as possible but must still be particular enough to respond to specific portions of a Report and Recommendation. See Quinn v. Stewart, No. 10 Civ. 8692, 2012 WL 1080145, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2012). Simply declaring that she has rights and deserves compensation and justice does nothing to explain specifically why the Court should not adopt Judge Pitman's recommendation.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error and having found none on the face of the record, the Court adopts Judge Pitman's recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant Usher and the City of Mount Vernon Defendants are GRANTED. Additionally, the entry of default against Defendant Usher is vacated. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the defendants' motions (Dkt. Nos. 34 and 44).
SO ORDERED:
_______________
BARBARA S. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: New York, New York
August 14, 2012