From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dove v. Pesce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Apr 3, 2014
3:13-CV-1417 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2014)

Summary

dismissing a pro se plaintiff's complaint as barred by res judicata as a result of a prior § 1915(e) dismissal

Summary of this case from Justice v. Kuhnapfel

Opinion

3:13-CV-1417 (LEK/DEP)

04-03-2014

DONALD M. DOVE, Plaintiff, v. HON. SUPREME J. PESCE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on December 20, 2013, 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. 4 ("Report-Recommendation").

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 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. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A., 434 F. App'x 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011); Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 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.").

Plaintiff's Objections contain only a conclusory assertion that "[t]his case [has] merits and ought to have appellate review." Dkt. No. 5. The Court therefore reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error and finds none.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court close this case; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties to this action in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 03, 2014

Albany, New York

______________________

Lawrence E. Kahn

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Dove v. Pesce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Apr 3, 2014
3:13-CV-1417 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2014)

dismissing a pro se plaintiff's complaint as barred by res judicata as a result of a prior § 1915(e) dismissal

Summary of this case from Justice v. Kuhnapfel
Case details for

Dove v. Pesce

Case Details

Full title:DONALD M. DOVE, Plaintiff, v. HON. SUPREME J. PESCE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Apr 3, 2014

Citations

3:13-CV-1417 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2014)

Citing Cases

Justice v. Kuhnapfel

Here, Plaintiff's allegations are duplicative of those raised and dismissed by the Court in Kuhnapfel, No.…