Opinion
3:18-CV-0767 (LEK/DEP)
10-19-2018
MICHAEL A. DEMUTH, Plaintiff, v. CHENANGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August 30, 2018, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 12 ("Report-Recommendation").
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If objections are timely filed, a court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." § 636(b). However, if no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven 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, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument."). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." § 636(b).
III. DISCUSSION
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none. The Court therefore adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety; orders that the County of Chenango be substituted as a named defendant in this case in the place of Chenango County Department of Social Services; and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 76) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the County of Chenango be substituted as a named defendant in this case in the place of Chenango County Department of Social Services; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must file an amended complaint within thirty days from the filing date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order; and it is further
ORDERED, that if Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint as directed above, the Clerk shall enter judgment indicating that this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 19, 2018
Albany, New York
/s/_________
Lawrence E. Kahn
U.S. District Judge