From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carroll v. Callanan

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jan 16, 2008
9:05-CV-1427 (LEK/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2008)

Summary

holding that "[the plaintiff] had a full and fair opportunity to [litigate] by raising the issues . . . in multiple documents submitted during the course of his Article 78 proceeding"

Summary of this case from Franza v. Stanford

Opinion

9:05-CV-1427 (LEK/DRH).

January 16, 2008


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on November 27, 2007 by the Honorable David R. Homer, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 38). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Plaintiff John Carroll, which were filed on December 12, 2007. Objections (Dkt. No. 39).

It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 38) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant's Second Motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED as to all remaining claims and Defendants; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Carroll v. Callanan

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jan 16, 2008
9:05-CV-1427 (LEK/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2008)

holding that "[the plaintiff] had a full and fair opportunity to [litigate] by raising the issues . . . in multiple documents submitted during the course of his Article 78 proceeding"

Summary of this case from Franza v. Stanford

holding that "[the plaintiff] had a full and fair opportunity to [litigate] by raising the issues . . . in multiple documents submitted during the course of his Article 78 proceeding"

Summary of this case from Smart v. Gifford

holding that "[the plaintiff] had a full and fair opportunity to [litigate] . . . by raising the issues . . . in multiple documents submitted during the course of his Article 78 proceeding"

Summary of this case from Davis v. Jackson

holding that "[the plaintiff] had a full and fair opportunity to [litigate] by raising the issues . . . in multiple documents submitted during the course of his Article 78 proceeding"

Summary of this case from Mancuso v. Vill. of Pelham
Case details for

Carroll v. Callanan

Case Details

Full title:JOHN F. CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA CALLANAN, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Jan 16, 2008

Citations

9:05-CV-1427 (LEK/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2008)

Citing Cases

Smart v. Gifford

Nor was Plaintiff denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue, given that she, by counsel,…

Mancuso v. Vill. of Pelham

This assertion, however, plainly lacks merit, given that he submitted a petition supported by exhibits as…